COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS	4 Months Ended
Jun. 14, 2014
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS	NOTE 13 – 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 June 14, 2014. 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 16 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 June 14, 2014, the maximum amount of undiscounted payments the Company would be required to make in the event of default of all guarantees was $69 ($53 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 Condensed 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, 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 22, 2014, the total undiscounted amount of all such guarantees was $331 ($297 on a discounted basis). Based on the expected settlement of the self-insurance claims that underlie the Company’s commitments while the Company owned NAI, the Company believes that such contingent liabilities will continue to decline. Subsequent to the sale of NAI, NAI collateralized these obligations with letters of credit to numerous states and certain NAI retail banner real estate assets. Because NAI remains a primary obligor on these self-insurance and other obligations and has collateralized 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 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these guarantees. 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 June 14, 2014, the Company had approximately $312 of non-cancelable future purchase obligations. The Company and AB Acquisition LLC (“AB Acquisition”) entered into a binding term sheet with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the “PBGC”) relating to issues regarding the effect of the sale of NAI on certain SUPERVALU retirement plans. The agreement requires that the Company will not pay any dividends to its stockholders at any time for the period beginning on January 9, 2013 and ending on the earliest of (i) March 21, 2018, (ii) the date on which the total of all contributions made to the SUPERVALU Retirement Plan on or after the closing date of the sale of NAI is at least $450 and (iii) the date on which SUPERVALU’s unsecured credit rating is BB+ from Standard & Poor’s or Ba1 from Moody’s (such earliest date, the end of the “PBGC Protection Period”). SUPERVALU has also agreed to make certain contributions to the SUPERVALU Retirement Plan in excess of the minimum required contributions at or before the end of fiscal years 2015 – 2017 (where such fiscal years end during the PBGC Protection Period), and AB Acquisition has agreed to provide a guarantee to the PBGC for such excess payments. Excess contributions required under this binding term sheet include $25 by the end of fiscal 2015, an additional $25 by the end of fiscal 2016 and an additional $50 by the end of fiscal 2017. 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 who 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 which 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. On June 18, 2014, the Company filed a petition for en banc review by the 8th Circuit on the reversal of the summary judgment decision and specific issues raised thereunder. 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 settlement is subject to the applicable courts’ preliminary and final approval. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 13, 2014. Final resolution is subject to the court’s approval, which the parties will seek in July 2014. 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. 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 of related costs and exposures. With respect to the IOS and C&S matters discussed above, the Company believes the chance of a negative outcome 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.

NOTE 13 – 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 June 14, 2014. 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 16 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 June 14, 2014, the maximum amount of undiscounted payments the Company would be required to make in the event of default of all guarantees was $69 ($53 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 Condensed 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, 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 22, 2014, the total undiscounted amount of all such guarantees was $331 ($297 on a discounted basis). Based on the expected settlement of the self-insurance claims that underlie the Company’s commitments while the Company owned NAI, the Company believes that such contingent liabilities will continue to decline. Subsequent to the sale of NAI, NAI collateralized these obligations with letters of credit to numerous states and certain NAI retail banner real estate assets. Because NAI remains a primary obligor on these self-insurance and other obligations and has collateralized 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 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for these guarantees.

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 June 14, 2014, the Company had approximately $312 of non-cancelable future purchase obligations.

The Company and AB Acquisition LLC (“AB Acquisition”) entered into a binding term sheet with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the “PBGC”) relating to issues regarding the effect of the sale of NAI on certain SUPERVALU retirement plans. The agreement requires that the Company will not pay any dividends to its stockholders at any time for the period beginning on January 9, 2013 and ending on the earliest of (i) March 21, 2018, (ii) the date on which the total of all contributions made to the SUPERVALU Retirement Plan on or after the closing date of the sale of NAI is at least $450 and (iii) the date on which SUPERVALU’s unsecured credit rating is BB+ from Standard & Poor’s or Ba1 from Moody’s (such earliest date, the end of the “PBGC Protection Period”). SUPERVALU has also agreed to make certain contributions to the SUPERVALU Retirement Plan in excess of the minimum required contributions at or before the end of fiscal years 2015 – 2017 (where such fiscal years end during the PBGC Protection Period), and AB Acquisition has agreed to provide a guarantee to the PBGC for such excess payments. Excess contributions required under this binding term sheet include $25 by the end of fiscal 2015, an additional $25 by the end of fiscal 2016 and an additional $50 by the end of fiscal 2017.

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 who 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 which 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. On June 18, 2014, the Company filed a petition for en banc review by the 8th Circuit on the reversal of the summary judgment decision and specific issues raised thereunder.

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 settlement is subject to the applicable courts’ preliminary and final approval. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 13, 2014. Final resolution is subject to the court’s approval, which the parties will seek in July 2014. 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.

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 of related costs and exposures.

With respect to the IOS and C&S matters discussed above, the Company believes the chance of a negative outcome 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.