Albertsons 2012 Annual Report Download - page 21

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 21 of the 2012 Albertsons annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 116

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116

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 the
other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. The Company is vigorously
defending these lawsuits. Separately from these civil lawsuits, on September 14, 2009, the United States Federal
Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a subpoena to the Company requesting documents related to the C&S
transaction as part of the FTC’s investigation into whether the Company and C&S engaged in unfair methods of
competition. The Company cooperated with the FTC. On March 18, 2011, the FTC notified the Company that it
has determined that no additional action is warranted by the FTC and that it has closed its investigation.
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 two 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.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not applicable.
17