UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE 13D
(Rule 13d-101)
INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN STATEMENTS FILED PURSUANT
TO § 240.13d-1(a) AND AMENDMENTS THERETO FILED PURSUANT TO
§ 240.13d-2(a)
(Amendment No. 6)1
Office Depot, Inc.
(Name of Issuer)
Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share
(Title of Class of Securities)
676220106
(CUSIP Number)
JEFFREY C. SMITH
STARBOARD VALUE LP
830 Third Avenue, 3rd Floor
New York, New York 10022
(212) 845-7977
OLSHAN FROME WOLOSKY LLP
Park Avenue Tower
65 East 55th Street
New York, New York 10022
(212) 451-2300
Authorized to Receive Notices and Communications)
April 22, 2013
(Date of Event Which Requires Filing of This Statement)
If the filing person has previously filed a statement on Schedule 13G to report the acquisition that is the subject of this Schedule 13D, and is filing this schedule because of §§ 240.13d-1(e), 240.13d-1(f) or 240.13d-1(g), check the following box ¨.
Note: Schedules filed in paper format shall include a signed original and five copies of the schedule, including all exhibits. See § 240.13d-7 for other parties to whom copies are to be sent.
_______________
1 The remainder of this cover page shall be filled out for a reporting person’s initial filing on this form with respect to the subject class of securities, and for any subsequent amendment containing information which would alter disclosures provided in a prior cover page.
The information required on the remainder of this cover page shall not be deemed to be “filed” for the purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section of the Act but shall be subject to all other provisions of the Act (however, see the Notes).
1
Note. Schedules filed in paper format shall include a signed original and five copies of the schedule, including all exhibits. See Rule 13d-7 for other parties to whom copies are to be sent.
(Continued on following pages)
2
CUSIP NO. 676220106
|
1
|
NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
STARBOARD VALUE AND OPPORTUNITY MASTER FUND LTD
|
||
|
2
|
CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
|
(a) o
(b) o
|
|
|
3
|
SEC USE ONLY
|
||
|
4
|
SOURCE OF FUNDS
WC
|
||
|
5
|
CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEM 2(d) OR 2(e)
|
¨
|
|
|
6
|
CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
CAYMAN ISLANDS
|
||
|
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH
|
7
|
SOLE VOTING POWER
12,711,135
|
|
|
8
|
SHARED VOTING POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
9
|
SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
12,711,135
|
||
|
10
|
SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
11
|
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
12,711,135
|
||
|
12
|
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
|
o
|
|
|
13
|
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
4.4%
|
||
|
14
|
TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
CO
|
||
3
CUSIP NO. 676220106
|
1
|
NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
STARBOARD VALUE AND OPPORTUNITY S LLC
|
||
|
2
|
CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
|
(a) o
(b) o
|
|
|
3
|
SEC USE ONLY
|
||
|
4
|
SOURCE OF FUNDS
WC
|
||
|
5
|
CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEM 2(d) OR 2(e)
|
¨
|
|
|
6
|
CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
DELAWARE
|
||
|
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH
|
7
|
SOLE VOTING POWER
2,829,381
|
|
|
8
|
SHARED VOTING POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
9
|
SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
2,829,381
|
||
|
10
|
SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
11
|
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
2,829,381
|
||
|
12
|
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
|
o
|
|
|
13
|
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
1.0%
|
||
|
14
|
TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
OO
|
||
4
CUSIP NO. 676220106
|
1
|
NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
STARBOARD VALUE LP
|
||
|
2
|
CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
|
(a) o
(b) o
|
|
|
3
|
SEC USE ONLY
|
||
|
4
|
SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO
|
||
|
5
|
CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEM 2(d) OR 2(e)
|
¨
|
|
|
6
|
CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
DELAWARE
|
||
|
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH
|
7
|
SOLE VOTING POWER
42,100,000
|
|
|
8
|
SHARED VOTING POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
9
|
SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
42,100,000
|
||
|
10
|
SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
11
|
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
42,100,000
|
||
|
12
|
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
|
o
|
|
|
13
|
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
14.7%
|
||
|
14
|
TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
PN
|
||
5
CUSIP NO. 676220106
|
1
|
NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
STARBOARD VALUE GP LLC
|
||
|
2
|
CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
|
(a) o
(b) o
|
|
|
3
|
SEC USE ONLY
|
||
|
4
|
SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO
|
||
|
5
|
CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEM 2(d) OR 2(e)
|
¨
|
|
|
6
|
CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
DELAWARE
|
||
|
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH
|
7
|
SOLE VOTING POWER
42,100,000
|
|
|
8
|
SHARED VOTING POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
9
|
SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
42,100,000
|
||
|
10
|
SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
11
|
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
42,100,000
|
||
|
12
|
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
|
o
|
|
|
13
|
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
14.7%
|
||
|
14
|
TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
OO
|
||
6
CUSIP NO. 676220106
|
1
|
NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
STARBOARD PRINCIPAL CO LP
|
||
|
2
|
CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
|
(a) o
(b) o
|
|
|
3
|
SEC USE ONLY
|
||
|
4
|
SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO
|
||
|
5
|
CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEM 2(d) OR 2(e)
|
¨
|
|
|
6
|
CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
DELAWARE
|
||
|
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH
|
7
|
SOLE VOTING POWER
42,100,000
|
|
|
8
|
SHARED VOTING POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
9
|
SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
42,100,000
|
||
|
10
|
SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
11
|
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
42,100,000
|
||
|
12
|
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
|
o
|
|
|
13
|
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
14.7%
|
||
|
14
|
TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
PN
|
||
7
CUSIP NO. 676220106
|
1
|
NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
STARBOARD PRINCIPAL CO GP LLC
|
||
|
2
|
CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
|
(a) o
(b) o
|
|
|
3
|
SEC USE ONLY
|
||
|
4
|
SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO
|
||
|
5
|
CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEM 2(d) OR 2(e)
|
¨
|
|
|
6
|
CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
DELAWARE
|
||
|
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH
|
7
|
SOLE VOTING POWER
42,100,000
|
|
|
8
|
SHARED VOTING POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
9
|
SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
42,100,000
|
||
|
10
|
SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
11
|
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
42,100,000
|
||
|
12
|
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
|
o
|
|
|
13
|
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
14.7%
|
||
|
14
|
TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
OO
|
||
8
CUSIP NO. 676220106
|
1
|
NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
JEFFREY C. SMITH
|
||
|
2
|
CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
|
(a) o
(b) o
|
|
|
3
|
SEC USE ONLY
|
||
|
4
|
SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO
|
||
|
5
|
CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEM 2(d) OR 2(e)
|
¨
|
|
|
6
|
CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
USA
|
||
|
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH
|
7
|
SOLE VOTING POWER
- 0 -
|
|
|
8
|
SHARED VOTING POWER
42,100,000
|
||
|
9
|
SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
10
|
SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
42,100,000
|
||
|
11
|
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
42,100,000
|
||
|
12
|
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
|
o
|
|
|
13
|
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
14.7%
|
||
|
14
|
TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
IN
|
||
9
CUSIP NO. 676220106
|
1
|
NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
MARK R. MITCHELL
|
||
|
2
|
CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
|
(a) o
(b) o
|
|
|
3
|
SEC USE ONLY
|
||
|
4
|
SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO
|
||
|
5
|
CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEM 2(d) OR 2(e)
|
¨
|
|
|
6
|
CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
USA
|
||
|
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH
|
7
|
SOLE VOTING POWER
- 0 -
|
|
|
8
|
SHARED VOTING POWER
42,100,000
|
||
|
9
|
SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
10
|
SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
42,100,000
|
||
|
11
|
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
42,100,000
|
||
|
12
|
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
|
o
|
|
|
13
|
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
14.7%
|
||
|
14
|
TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
IN
|
||
10
CUSIP NO. 676220106
|
1
|
NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
PETER A. FELD
|
||
|
2
|
CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
|
(a) o
(b) o
|
|
|
3
|
SEC USE ONLY
|
||
|
4
|
SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO
|
||
|
5
|
CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEM 2(d) OR 2(e)
|
¨
|
|
|
6
|
CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
USA
|
||
|
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH
|
7
|
SOLE VOTING POWER
- 0 -
|
|
|
8
|
SHARED VOTING POWER
42,100,000
|
||
|
9
|
SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
10
|
SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
42,100,000
|
||
|
11
|
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
42,100,000
|
||
|
12
|
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
|
o
|
|
|
13
|
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
14.7%
|
||
|
14
|
TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
IN
|
||
11
CUSIP NO. 676220106
|
1
|
NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
T-S CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC
|
||
|
2
|
CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
|
(a) o
(b) o
|
|
|
3
|
SEC USE ONLY
|
||
|
4
|
SOURCE OF FUNDS
WC
|
||
|
5
|
CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEM 2(d) OR 2(e)
|
¨
|
|
|
6
|
CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
CALIFORNIA
|
||
|
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH
|
7
|
SOLE VOTING POWER
100,000
|
|
|
8
|
SHARED VOTING POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
9
|
SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
100,000
|
||
|
10
|
SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
11
|
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
100,000
|
||
|
12
|
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
|
o
|
|
|
13
|
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
Less than 1%
|
||
|
14
|
TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
OO
|
||
12
CUSIP NO. 676220106
|
1
|
NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
DAVID SIEGEL
|
||
|
2
|
CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
|
(a) o
(b) o
|
|
|
3
|
SEC USE ONLY
|
||
|
4
|
SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO, PF
|
||
|
5
|
CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEM 2(d) OR 2(e)
|
¨
|
|
|
6
|
CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
USA
|
||
|
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH
|
7
|
SOLE VOTING POWER
1,250
|
|
|
8
|
SHARED VOTING POWER
100,000
|
||
|
9
|
SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
1,250
|
||
|
10
|
SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
100,000
|
||
|
11
|
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
101,250
|
||
|
12
|
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
|
o
|
|
|
13
|
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
Less than 1%
|
||
|
14
|
TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
IN
|
||
13
CUSIP NO. 676220106
|
1
|
NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
ROBERT TELLES
|
||
|
2
|
CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
|
(a) o
(b) o
|
|
|
3
|
SEC USE ONLY
|
||
|
4
|
SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO
|
||
|
5
|
CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEM 2(d) OR 2(e)
|
¨
|
|
|
6
|
CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
USA
|
||
|
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH
|
7
|
SOLE VOTING POWER
- 0 -
|
|
|
8
|
SHARED VOTING POWER
100,000
|
||
|
9
|
SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
10
|
SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
100,000
|
||
|
11
|
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
100,000
|
||
|
12
|
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
|
o
|
|
|
13
|
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
Less than 1%
|
||
|
14
|
TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
IN
|
||
14
CUSIP NO. 676220106
|
1
|
NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
JOSEPH S. VASSALLUZZO
|
||
|
2
|
CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
|
(a) o
(b) o
|
|
|
3
|
SEC USE ONLY
|
||
|
4
|
SOURCE OF FUNDS
PF
|
||
|
5
|
CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEM 2(d) OR 2(e)
|
¨
|
|
|
6
|
CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
USA
|
||
|
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH
|
7
|
SOLE VOTING POWER
14,450
|
|
|
8
|
SHARED VOTING POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
9
|
SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
14,450
|
||
|
10
|
SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
11
|
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
14,450
|
||
|
12
|
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
|
o
|
|
|
13
|
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
Less than 1%
|
||
|
14
|
TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
IN
|
||
15
CUSIP NO. 676220106
|
1
|
NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
ROBERT L. NARDELLI
|
||
|
2
|
CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
|
(a) o
(b) o
|
|
|
3
|
SEC USE ONLY
|
||
|
4
|
SOURCE OF FUNDS
PF
|
||
|
5
|
CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEM 2(d) OR 2(e)
|
¨
|
|
|
6
|
CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
USA
|
||
|
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH
|
7
|
SOLE VOTING POWER
68,389
|
|
|
8
|
SHARED VOTING POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
9
|
SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
68,389
|
||
|
10
|
SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
11
|
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
68,389
|
||
|
12
|
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
|
o
|
|
|
13
|
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
Less than 1%
|
||
|
14
|
TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
IN
|
||
16
CUSIP NO. 676220106
|
1
|
NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
JAMES P. FOGARTY
|
||
|
2
|
CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
|
(a) o
(b) o
|
|
|
3
|
SEC USE ONLY
|
||
|
4
|
SOURCE OF FUNDS
|
||
|
5
|
CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEM 2(d) OR 2(e)
|
¨
|
|
|
6
|
CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
USA
|
||
|
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH
|
7
|
SOLE VOTING POWER
- 0 -
|
|
|
8
|
SHARED VOTING POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
9
|
SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
10
|
SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
11
|
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
- 0 -
|
||
|
12
|
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
|
o
|
|
|
13
|
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
- 0 -
|
||
|
14
|
TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
IN
|
||
17
CUSIP NO. 676220106
|
1
|
NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
CYNTHIA T. JAMISON
|
||
|
2
|
CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
|
(a) o
(b) o
|
|
|
3
|
SEC USE ONLY
|
||
|
4
|
SOURCE OF FUNDS
|
||
|
5
|
CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEM 2(d) OR 2(e)
|
¨
|
|
|
6
|
CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
USA
|
||
|
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH
|
7
|
SOLE VOTING POWER
- 0 -
|
|
|
8
|
SHARED VOTING POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
9
|
SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
10
|
SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
- 0 -
|
||
|
11
|
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
- 0 -
|
||
|
12
|
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
|
o
|
|
|
13
|
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
- 0 -
|
||
|
14
|
TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
IN
|
||
18
CUSIP NO. 676220106
The following constitutes Amendment No. 6 to the Schedule 13D filed by the undersigned (the “Amendment No. 6”). This Amendment No. 6 amends the Schedule 13D as specifically set forth herein.
Item 3. Source and Amount of Funds or Other Consideration.
Item 3 is hereby amended to add the following:
The Shares owned directly by Messrs. Siegel, Vassalluzzo and Nardelli were purchased with personal funds in open market purchases. The aggregate purchase price of the 1,250 Shares owned by Mr. Siegel individually is approximately $5,023, excluding brokerage commissions. The aggregate purchase price of the 14,450 Shares beneficially owned by Mr. Vassalluzzo is approximately $49,596, excluding brokerage commissions. The aggregate purchase price of the 68,389 Shares beneficially owned by Mr. Nardelli is approximately $203,877, excluding brokerage commissions.
Item 4. Purpose of the Transaction.
Item 4 is hereby amended to add the following:
On April 22, 2013, Starboard Value delivered a letter to the Board of Directors of the Issuer (the “Board”) expressing strong disappointment at the Board’s failure to work constructively with Starboard to reconstitute the Board and informing them of its filing of a preliminary consent statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission seeking to remove and replace a minority of the current Board. The full text of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.
In the letter, Starboard stated it is uncomfortable with the execution and experience of the current Board and is, therefore, seeking to add to the Board a number of individuals with significant retail operating experience who are far more qualified than the majority of the existing Board. Starboard noted that while it is in favor of the proposed merger with OfficeMax Incorporated (“OfficeMax” and the proposed merger, the “OfficeMax Merger”), it still feels it is critically important to substantially improve the Board as soon as possible to ensure that the Issuer is fully prepared to succeed as a stand-alone entity should the OfficeMax Merger not close and be a stronger merger partner for the combined company should the OfficeMax Merger be consummated.
Starboard reiterated its deep frustration with the Board’s lack of action regarding the sale of the Issuer’s stake in the 50/50 joint venture of Office Depot de Mexico and the absence of any indication as to whether the Board has ever sought consent from OfficeMax to explore alternatives for this valuable asset. Starboard also criticized the Board for its complacency with respect to the Company’s operating underperformance.
Starboard expressed disappointment at the lack of progress in its discussions with the Board regarding Board representation and pointed out that it has become clear that the Issuer has no intention of holding the 2013 annual meeting of stockholders in a timely manner. Accordingly, conducting a consent solicitation is the only alternative available to Starboard at this time for providing stockholders with an opportunity to elect directors whom they believe will serve and protect their best interests in the boardroom. Starboard stated it understands that as a result of the right of BC Partners, Inc (“BC Partners”) to designate director candidates to the Board under the framework of the investor rights agreement between the Issuer and BC Partners, if Starboard is successful in removing one of BC Partners designees on the Board a BC Partners designee will be added back to the Board. Accordingly, Starboard is ultimately providing stockholders the opportunity to add its four highly-qualified Board candidates, while removing three poorly-qualified incumbent directors and effectively expanding the Board to eleven members to accommodate the re-appointment of such BC Partners designee.
19
Starboard concluded that it would consider possibly foregoing its consent solicitation if the Board immediately commits to a framework that would provide for the addition of its highly-qualified candidates to the Board.
Starboard intends to continue to engage in discussions with management, the Board and shareholders of the Issuer regarding the reconstitution of the Board, including its consent solicitation and the election of Starboard’s director candidates to the Board.
|
Item 5.
|
Interest in Securities of the Issuer.
|
Items 5(a) - 5(c) are hereby amended to add the following:
|
A.
|
Mr. Siegel
|
|
|
(a)
|
As of the close of business on April 19, 2013, Mr. Siegel, as a managing member of T-S Capital, may be deemed the beneficial owner of the 100,000 Shares owned by T-S Capital, in addition to 1,250 Shares owned by him individually.
|
Percentage: Less than 1%
|
|
(b)
|
1. Sole power to vote or direct vote: 1,250
|
|
|
2. Shared power to vote or direct vote: 100,000
|
|
|
3. Sole power to dispose or direct the disposition: 1,250
|
|
|
4. Shared power to dispose or direct the disposition: 100,000
|
|
|
(c)
|
On March 22, 2013, Mr. Siegel purchased 1,250 Shares at a price of $4.0185 per Share.
|
|
B.
|
Mr. Vassalluzzo
|
|
|
(a)
|
As of the close of business on April 19, 2013, Mr. Vassalluzzo beneficially owned 14,450 Shares.
|
Percentage: Less than 1%
|
|
(b)
|
1. Sole power to vote or direct vote: 14,450
|
|
|
2. Shared power to vote or direct vote: 0
|
|
|
3. Sole power to dispose or direct the disposition: 14,450
|
|
|
4. Shared power to dispose or direct the disposition: 0
|
|
|
(c)
|
On March 21, 2013, Mr. Vassalluzzo purchased 2,450 Shares at a price of $4.0597 per Share.
|
|
C.
|
Mr. Nardelli
|
|
|
(a)
|
As of the close of business on April 19, 2013, Mr. Nardelli beneficially owned 68,389 Shares.
|
Percentage: Less than 1%
20
|
|
(b)
|
1. Sole power to vote or direct vote: 68,389
|
|
|
2. Shared power to vote or direct vote: 0
|
|
|
3. Sole power to dispose or direct the disposition: 68,389
|
|
|
4. Shared power to dispose or direct the disposition: 0
|
|
|
(c)
|
On March 21, 2013, Mr. Nardelli purchased 2,389 Shares at a price of $4.0986 per Share.
|
An aggregate of 42,284,089 Shares, constituting approximately 14.8% of the Shares outstanding, are reported in this Amendment No. 6.
|
Item 7.
|
Material to be Filed as Exhibits.
|
Item 7 is amended to add the following exhibit:
|
|
99.1
|
Letter to the Board of Directors, dated April 22, 2013.
|
21
SIGNATURES
After reasonable inquiry and to the best of his knowledge and belief, each of the undersigned certifies that the information set forth in this statement is true, complete and correct.
Dated: April 22, 2013
|
STARBOARD VALUE AND OPPORTUNITY MASTER FUND LTD
By: Starboard Value LP,
its investment manager
STARBOARD VALUE AND OPPORTUNITY S LLC
By: Starboard Value LP,
its manager
STARBOARD VALUE LP
By: Starboard Value GP LLC,
its general partner
|
STARBOARD VALUE GP LLC
By: Starboard Principal Co LP,
its member
STARBOARD PRINCIPAL CO LP
By: Starboard Principal Co GP LLC,
its general partner
STARBOARD PRINCIPAL CO GP LLC
|
|
By:
|
/s/ Jeffrey C. Smith
|
|
|
Name:
|
Jeffrey C. Smith
|
|
|
Title:
|
Authorized Signatory
|
|
|
/s/ Jeffrey C. Smith
|
|
JEFFREY C. SMITH
|
|
Individually and as attorney-in-fact for Mark R. Mitchell, Peter A. Feld, T-S Capital Partners, LLC, David Siegel, Robert Telles, Joseph S. Vassalluzzo, Robert L. Nardelli, James P. Fogarty, and Cynthia T. Jamison
|
22
Exhibit 99.1
April 22, 2013
Members of the Board of Directors of Office Depot, Inc.
Office Depot, Inc.
6600 North Military Trail
Boca Raton, FL 33496
Dear Members of the Board,
Starboard Value LP, together with its affiliates (“Starboard”), currently owns approximately 14.8% of the outstanding common shares of Office Depot, Inc. (“Office Depot” or the “Company”), making us Office Depot’s largest common stockholder. Additionally, pro forma for the proposed merger of Office Depot and OfficeMax Incorporated (“OfficeMax” and the proposed merger, the “OfficeMax Merger”), we believe Starboard would be the largest stockholder of the combined company.
As a reminder, on September 17, 2012, we sent a letter to the Board of Directors of Office Depot (the “Board”) outlining a number of initiatives to substantially improve value for stockholders. These initiatives included, among other things, thoughts on how to dramatically improve the operating performance of the Company by approximately $300 million to $500 million by significantly reducing expenses as well as our belief that the Company’s 50/50 joint venture ownership of Office Depot de Mexico (the “Mexico JV Interest”) is non-core and has substantial hidden value.
We also stated that we had identified a number of individuals with significant retail operating experience who are far more qualified than the majority of the existing Board and we expressed our desire to join the Board to help the Company implement our proposed initiatives and create value for stockholders. We also repeatedly expressed our willingness to join the Board alone because we believed our experience and interest in Office Depot could be valuable in the event that the Board were to undertake any potential negotiations with either OfficeMax or relating to the Mexico JV Interest. Unfortunately, rather than work with us, the Board has ignored our offers. While it is always difficult to criticize past behavior regarding a negotiated transaction, we strongly believe that had we been involved on the Board, both the OfficeMax Merger, as well as the outcome of exploring alternatives to maximize the value of the Mexico JV Interest, would have been handled far better for the benefit of Office Depot stockholders.
Since the announcement of the OfficeMax Merger, we have continued to have private discussions with you regarding Board representation. We have made it clear to you that given the past underperformance of the Company under the current leadership and Board, we are uncomfortable with the execution and experience of the Board as currently composed. We have continued to state that a large number of very important decisions will need to be made over the next several months, which extend beyond the selection of the CEO and the selection of board members to any combined board. Adding new, highly-experienced directors to the Board now would substantially improve the outcome of those decisions, as well as many others, and would avoid missteps to be criticized after the fact. Similarly, if the OfficeMax Merger does not close for any reason, a highly-qualified Board will be far better equipped to choose the right management team and more successfully oversee the Company as a stand-alone entity.
1
While we are in favor of the OfficeMax Merger, we still feel it is critically important to substantially improve the Board as soon as possible. Office Depot must begin to plan and build a strategy for a far improved company immediately. Contrary to what you and we might hope, the OfficeMax Merger is not certain to close. The Board and management, therefore, need to plan and prepare now to make Office Depot as strong as possible. Early planning will ensure that the Company is fully prepared to succeed should the OfficeMax Merger not close and will be a stronger merger partner for the combined company should the OfficeMax Merger be consummated. Improving the Board today is in the best interests of the Company, the employees, and the stockholders of both Office Depot and OfficeMax.
As an example, we are deeply frustrated by the Board’s lack of action regarding the sale of the Mexico JV Interest. On February 27, 2013, we sent you a letter asking the Board to promptly obtain consent from OfficeMax under the merger agreement to immediately explore a sale of the Mexico JV Interest to maximize value for stockholders. In our letter, we stated that a sale of this asset at a full and fair price is in the best interest of both Office Depot and OfficeMax stockholders if the OfficeMax Merger is completed as the Company would have a significantly stronger balance sheet from which to transform the pro-forma company and execute on any and all potential synergies. Similarly, if the OfficeMax Merger is not completed for any reason, then Office Depot stockholders would benefit from the sale because the stand-alone company would be financially stronger having sold the asset. On March 12, 2013, we followed up with a private letter once again urging the Board to send a formal written request to OfficeMax and setting forth our view that, consistent with the merger agreement, OfficeMax’s approval should not be unreasonably withheld given the clear benefits to stockholders of such a potential sale.
Almost two months have passed since our first letter asking the Company to obtain consent from OfficeMax and many more since we first wrote to the Board to impress the importance of exploring alternatives to monetize the valuable Mexico JV Interest. Yet, there is no evidence that the Board is considering an exploration of alternatives for the Mexico JV Interest, or whether any formal request has even been sent to OfficeMax or has been unreasonably denied.
Lost in all the excitement of the pending OfficeMax Merger, is the Board’s apparent complacency with regards to the Company’s continued poor operating performance. Last quarter’s poor results, with same store sales down approximately 7%, and the reduction in year over year operating profit by approximately 28% are just the latest in a long history of underperformance under the stewardship of the current Board and management team. As we have repeatedly stated, we believe the current Board and management of Office Depot lack the critical experience necessary to oversee a substantial improvement in profitability and the transformation of the Company. Of the ten directors currently on the Board, only two directors have relevant retail operating experience outside of Office Depot.1 Further, the CEO, Neil Austrian, has no prior relevant retail operating experience outside of Office Depot. Even more concerning is the Board’s decision to entrust the CEO role to someone with no retail operating experience when it is clear that the Company needs an experienced retail executive to transform the business. It is important to point out that since the beginning of Mr. Austrian’s tenure as CEO in October 2010, the stock price has declined by approximately 20% to date and by approximately 48% prior to Starboard’s filing of an initial Schedule 13D with the SEC on September 17, 2012. In fact, despite revenue declining by approximately $1 billion over that time, total general and administrative (G&A) expenses have actually increased and the operating margins of the Company are lower than both Staples, Inc. (“Staples”) and OfficeMax.
1 Based on current and prior experience disclosed by the Company in its proxy materials for the 2012 annual meeting of stockholders, except that with respect to Eugene Fife who was not included in the 2012 proxy materials, information was sourced from Office Depot’s website and Capital IQ. “Relevant Experience” is deemed to consist of substantial, relevant operational experience at a retailer other than Office Depot.
2
Office Depot does not have the luxury of simply hoping that everything works out down the road. It is important to remember that Office Depot used to be the leading office supply retailer until a merger with Staples failed to close in 1997 and, unlike Staples, Office Depot was not prepared to execute as a stand-alone business. We do not want the risk of history repeating itself. Office Depot needs to have the best Board and management team possible to improve the operating performance of the Company now. An improved Board and management team with a solid plan to improve profitability and stockholder value will not only make Office Depot a stronger stand-alone company, but will also drive improved results that will accrue to the benefit of OfficeMax stockholders in a merger and increase the chances of the merger being successful. However, it is critically important that a new enhanced Board starts now to implement a plan for the short term and the long term future success of the Company. Only then will the Company be fully prepared to succeed under any circumstance.
Over the last several months, we have made every effort to work constructively with you to reconstitute the Board. In our latest conversation, we offered to simply add four of our experienced nominees to the Board right away so that none of the current Board members would need to leave the Board at this time. We also offered that only two of our highly-qualified nominees would be among the five directors contributed to any combined company board, thereby leaving three other available spots which would presumably be filled by Nigel Travis (in our view, the most qualified incumbent Board member with substantial retail experience) and two other directors (hopefully, highly-qualified directors with relevant experience). This way, we believe that the Board can be strengthened with true industry experts and a stockholder representative in the boardroom to ensure that the Company is prepared for whatever challenges it may face in the future regardless of the outcome of the OfficeMax Merger.
Unfortunately, we are still awaiting a response to our offer and fear that, like all other constructive suggestions we have made, it has fallen on deaf ears as the Board continues to entrench itself rather than look out for the best interests of stockholders. We have come to believe that the current Board may not only be less than ideally qualified, but may also be fractured and unable to make hard decisions that would clearly be in the best interests of all stockholders.
It has also become clear at this time that the Board has no intention of holding the 2013 Annual Meeting of stockholders in a timely manner under Delaware law and will instead continue to delay the meeting to frustrate the ability of stockholders to choose their representation on the Board. We note that the Company held its 2012 Annual Meeting on April 26, 2012 and filed its proxy materials on March 15, 2012. We further note that the Company has held its Annual Meeting during the latter half of April for at least the past six years. Your response in our last meeting that the Company had to delay the 2013 Annual Meeting because of the announced OfficeMax Merger is entirely untrue. As we pointed out in our meeting, OfficeMax, your merger partner, has already set an annual meeting date of April 29, 2013, consistent with its previous years’ annual meetings, and has already filed its proxy materials. Office Depot’s stockholders deserve the opportunity now, without further delay, to elect the directors they want to represent their best interests (i) during the pendency of the proposed OfficeMax Merger, (ii) in selecting the future CEO of the Company and (iii) in selecting the directors who would be eligible to serve on the pro forma board should the proposed OfficeMax Merger be consummated.
3
Accordingly, we have no choice but to seek to bypass the ineffectiveness of the current Board by commencing a consent solicitation to give the stockholders of Office Depot an opportunity to elect their representation without further delay. The consent solicitation process allows stockholders to take action in the absence of a stockholder meeting by obtaining and delivering the requisite number of written consents equal to the vote that would be required to approve such an action at a stockholder meeting. Earlier today we filed preliminary consent materials with the SEC in furtherance of a consent solicitation aimed at seeking stockholder approval to remove and replace up to four members of the current Board with our highly-qualified director candidates. Among the four current Board members we are seeking to remove is one designated Board member who represents the interest of BC Partners, Inc. (“BC Partners”) on the Board. We have discussed the truly poor governance implications of the arrangement with BC Partners in a prior letter, but note that among the terms of the investor rights agreement with BC Partners is a provision that even if stockholders remove one of BC Partners designated Board members a replacement BC Partners designee will be added back to the Board. We, therefore, fully understand that we are ultimately providing stockholders the opportunity to add our four highly-qualified Board candidates, while removing three poorly-qualified incumbent directors and effectively expanding the Board to eleven members to accommodate the re-appointment of such BC Partners designee.
To be clear, the extraordinary action of launching a consent solicitation in this situation should be unnecessary and is entirely frustrating. We believe the current Board clearly lacks the requisite skill sets to dramatically improve the performance of the Company. We cannot sit idly by and continue to accept a Board that is interested in entrenching itself and overseeing a business based entirely on hope. We feel strongly that the Board needs to be stronger and far better prepared for all eventualities. We would consider possibly foregoing our consent solicitation if the Board immediately commits to a framework that would provide for the addition of our highly-qualified candidates to the Board. In the meantime, however, we must continue to reserve our rights to pursue all necessary steps, including the consent solicitation, to ensure that Office Depot stockholders are provided with the opportunity to elect directors they believe will serve and protect their best interests in the boardroom.
Best Regards,
/s/ Jeffrey C. Smith
Jeffrey C. Smith
Starboard Value LP
4