LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
−Removed: From time to time, we are involved in routine litigation or other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business, including investigations and claims regarding employment law, pension plans, ULP, labor union disputes, supplier, customer and service provider contract terms, real estate, and antitrust.
−Removed: Other than as described in Note 18—Commitments, Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements in Part II, Item 8 of this Annual Report, and as set forth below, there are no pending material legal proceedings to which we are a party or to which our property is subject.
−Removed: In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were filed against Supervalu relating to the criminal intrusion into Supervalu’s computer network that were previously announced by Supervalu in its fiscal 2015.
−Removed: The cases were centralized in the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption In Re:
−Removed: SUPERVALU Inc.
−Removed: Customer Data Security Breach Litigation.
−Removed: On June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
−Removed: Supervalu filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3, 2015.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs
−Removed: 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 Supervalu filed its response in opposition on March 4, 2016.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit and on May 31, 2016, Supervalu filed a cross-appeal to preserve its additional arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint.
−Removed: On August 30, 2017, the 8th Circuit affirmed the dismissal for 14 out of the 15 plaintiffs finding they had no standing.
−Removed: The 8th Circuit did not consider Supervalu’s cross-appeal and remanded the case back for consideration of Supervalu’s additional arguments for dismissal against the one remaining plaintiff.
−Removed: On October 30, 2017, Supervalu filed a motion to dismiss the remaining plaintiff and on November 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend its complaint.
−Removed: 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 Supervalu’s motion to dismiss.
−Removed: On March 14, 2018, plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit and on May 31, 2019, the 8th Circuit denied plaintiff’s appeal affirming the District Court’s dismissal of the case.
−Removed: We do not expect any further action on this case.
−Removed: Supervalu had $50 million of cyber threat insurance above a per incident deductible of $1 million at the time of the criminal intrusion, which the Company believes should cover any potential loss related to this litigation.
+Added: From time to time, we are involved in routine litigation or other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business, including investigations and claims regarding employment law, pension plans, unfair labor practices, labor union disputes, supplier, customer and service provider contract terms, real estate, and antitrust.
+Added: Other than as described in Note 18—Commitments, Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements in Part II, Item 8 of this Annual Report, which is incorporated herein, and as set forth below, there are no pending material legal proceedings to which we are a party or to which our property is subject.
+Added: In 2016, as part of a hazardous waste enforcement campaign by the California Attorney General’s Office and local district attorneys, Unified Grocers received a subpoena from the Yolo County District Attorney regarding hazardous waste management and storage at its Stockton and Commerce, California distribution centers.
+Added: We have provided requested documents and cooperated fully with the investigation.
+Added: On May 24, 2018, the District Attorney toured the Stockton distribution center and generally found the distribution center to be in compliance, and minor items noted regarding labeling have been addressed.
+Added: We are in negotiations with the District Attorney to reach a settlement, which we expect will be immaterial in amount but may include penalties of $100,000 or more.
MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
1 unchanged sentence
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.