10 . Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Obligations The Company had outstanding contracts and purchase orders for capital projects and services totaling $30.4 million at September 29, 2018. Amounts due under these contracts were not included on the Companys consolidated balance sheet as of September 29, 2018. Guarantees Subsidiaries of the Company have entered into numerous operating leases, including leases of buildings, equipment, tractors, and trailers. Certain of the leases for tractors, trailers, and other vehicles and equipment provide for residual value guarantees to the lessors. Circumstances that would require the subsidiary to perform under the guarantees include either (1) default on the leases with the leased assets being sold for less than the specified residual values in the lease agreements, or (2) decisions not to purchase the assets at the end of the lease terms combined with the sale of the assets, with sales proceeds less than the residual value of the leased assets specified in the lease agreements. Residual value guarantees under these operating lease agreements typically range between 7% and 20% of the value of the leased assets at inception of the lease. These leases have original terms ranging from 4 to 8 years and expiration dates ranging from 2018 to 2025. As of September 29, 2018, the undiscounted maximum amount of potential future payments for lease guarantees totaled approximately $25.9 million, which would be mitigated by the fair value of the leased assets at lease expiration. The Company from time to time enters into certain types of contracts that contingently require it to indemnify various parties against claims from third parties. These contracts primarily relate to: (i) certain real estate leases under which subsidiaries of the Company may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities and other claims arising from their use of the applicable premises; (ii) certain agreements with the Companys officers, directors, and employees under which the Company may be required to indemnify such persons for liabilities arising out of their employment relationship; and (iii) customer agreements under which the Company may be required to indemnify customers for certain claims brought against them with respect to the supplied products. Generally, a maximum obligation under these contracts is not explicitly stated. Because the obligated amounts associated with these types of agreements are not explicitly stated, the overall maximum amount of the obligation cannot be reasonably estimated. Historically, the Company has not been required to make payments under these obligations and, therefore, no liabilities have been recorded for these obligations in the Companys consolidated balance sheets. Litigation The Company is engaged in various legal proceedings that have arisen but have not been fully adjudicated. The likelihood of loss arising from these legal proceedings, based on definitions within contingency accounting literature, ranges from remote to reasonably possible to probable. When losses are probable and reasonably estimable, they have been accrued. Based on estimates of the range of potential losses associated with these matters, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect upon the consolidated financial position or results of operations of the Company. However, the final results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and, if the Company failed to prevail in one or more of these legal matters, and the associated realized losses were to exceed the Companys current estimates of the range of potential losses, the Companys consolidated financial position or results of operations could be materially adversely affected in future periods. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Lawsuit . In March 2009, the Baltimore Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Field Office served us with company-wide (excluding, however, our Vistar and Roma Foodservice operations) subpoenas relating to alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII), seeking certain information from January 1, 2004 to a specified date in the first fiscal quarter of 2009. In August 2009, the EEOC moved to enforce the subpoenas in federal court in Maryland, and we opposed the motion. In February 2010, the court ruled that the subpoena related to the Equal Pay Act investigation was enforceable company-wide but on a narrower scope of data than the original subpoena sought (the court ruled that the subpoena was applicable to the transportation, logistics, and warehouse functions of our broadline distribution centers only). We cooperated with the EEOC on the production of information. In September 2011, the EEOC notified us that the EEOC was terminating the investigation into alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act. In determinations issued in September 2012 by the EEOC with respect to the charges on which the EEOC had based its company-wide investigation, the EEOC concluded that we engaged in a pattern of denying hiring and promotion to a class of female applicants and employees into certain positions within the transportation, logistics, and warehouse functions within our broadline division in violation of Title VII. In June 2013, the EEOC filed suit in federal court in Baltimore against us. The litigation concerns two issues: (1) whether we unlawfully engaged in an ongoing pattern and practice of failing to hire female applicants into operations positions; and (2) whether we unlawfully failed to promote one of the three individuals who filed charges with the EEOC because of her gender. The EEOC seeks the following relief in the lawsuit: (1) to permanently enjoin us from denying employment to female applicants because of their sex and denying promotions to female employees because of their sex; (2) a court order mandating that we institute and carry out policies, procedures, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for females; (3) back pay with prejudgment interest and compensatory damages for a former female employee and an alleged class of aggrieved female applicants; (4) punitive damages; and (5) costs. The court bifurcated the litigation into two phases. In the first phase, the jury will decide whether we engaged in a gender-based pattern and practice of discrimination and the individual claims of one former employee. If the EEOC prevails on all counts in the first phase, no monetary relief would be awarded, except possibly for the single individuals claims, which would be immaterial. The remaining individual claims would then be tried in the second phase. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company cannot estimate either the number of individual trials that could occur in the second phase of the litigation or the value of those claims. For these reasons, we are unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in the event of an adverse finding in the first and second phases of the litigation. In May 2018, the EEOC filed motions for sanctions against us alleging that we failed to preserve certain paper employment applications and e-mails during 2004  2009. In the sanctions motions, the EEOC seeks a range of remedies, including but not limited to, a default judgment against us, or alternatively, an order barring us from filing for summary judgment on the EEOCs pattern and practice claims. We opposed the motions and will continue to vigorously defend ourselves. Tax Liabilities The Company is subject to customary audits by authorities in the jurisdictions where it conducts business in the United States, which may result in assessments of additional taxes.