Commitments and contingencies	6 Months Ended
Commitments and contingencies	Feb. 29, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	Commitments and contingenciesThe Company is involved in legal proceedings, including litigation, arbitration and other claims, and investigations, inspections, subpoenas, audits, claims, inquiries and similar actions by pharmacy, healthcare, tax and other governmental authorities, arising in the normal course of the Company’s business, including the matters described below. Legal proceedings, in general, and securities, class action and multi-district litigation, in particular, can be expensive and disruptive. Some of these suits may purport or may be determined to be class actions and/or involve parties seeking large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive or exemplary damages, and may remain unresolved for several years. From time to time, the Company is also involved in legal proceedings as a plaintiff involving antitrust, tax, contract, intellectual property and other matters. Gain contingencies, if any, are recognized when they are realized. Like other companies in the retail pharmacy and pharmaceutical wholesale industries, the Company is subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States and other countries in which it operates. There continues to be a heightened level of review and/or audit by regulatory authorities of, and increased litigation regarding, the Company’s and the rest of the health care and related industry’s business, compliance and reporting practices. As a result, the Company regularly is the subject of government actions of the types described above. The Company also may be named from time to time in qui tam actions initiated by private third parties. In such actions, the private parties purport to act on behalf of federal or state governments, allege that false claims have been submitted for payment by the government and may receive an award if their claims are successful. After a private party has filed a qui tam action, the government must investigate the private party's claim and determine whether to intervene in and take control over the litigation. These actions may remain under seal while the government makes this determination. If the government declines to intervene, the private party may nonetheless continue to pursue the litigation on his or her own purporting to act on behalf of the government. The results of legal proceedings, including government investigations, are often uncertain and difficult to predict, and the costs incurred in these matters can be substantial, regardless of the outcome. With respect to litigation and other legal proceedings where the Company has determined that a loss is reasonably possible, the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss due to the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of and uncertainties regarding such litigation and legal proceedings. The Company believes that its defenses and assertions in pending legal proceedings have merit and does not believe that any of these pending matters, after consideration of applicable reserves and rights to indemnification, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position. However, substantial unanticipated verdicts, fines and rulings do sometimes occur. As a result, the Company could from time to time incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise its expectations regarding the outcome of certain matters, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations in the period in which the amounts are accrued and/or its cash flows in the period in which the amounts are paid. In addition, as a result of governmental investigations or proceedings, the Company may be subject to damages, civil or criminal fines or penalties, or other sanctions, including the possible suspension or loss of licensure and/or suspension or exclusion from participation in government programs. On December 29, 2014, a putative shareholder filed a derivative action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against certain current and former directors and officers of Walgreen Co., and Walgreen Co. as a nominal defendant, arising out of certain public statements the Company made regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. The action asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste and unjust enrichment. On April 10, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On May 18, 2015, the case was stayed in light of a securities class action that was filed on April 10, 2015. After a ruling issued on September 30, 2016 in the securities class action, which is described below, on November 3, 2016, the Court entered a stipulation and order extending the stay until the resolution of the securities class action. On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co. The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. On June 16, 2015, the Court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff. Pursuant to the Court’s order, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on October 16, 2015. On September 30, 2016, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on November 4, 2016 and filed an amended answer on January 16, 2017. Plaintiff filed its motion for class certification on April 21, 2017. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion on March 29, 2018 and merits discovery is proceeding. On December 19, 2018, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint and defendants moved to dismiss the new complaint on February 19, 2019. On September 23, 2019, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. Discovery is proceeding. On December 11, 2017, purported Rite Aid shareholders filed an amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the “M.D. Pa. action”) arising out of transactions contemplated by the merger agreement between the Company and Rite Aid. The amended complaint alleged that the Company and certain of its officers made false or misleading statements regarding the transactions. The Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 15, 2019. The Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses, discovery commenced, and the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In June 2019, a Fred’s, Inc. shareholder filed a nearly identical lawsuit to the M.D. Pa. action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, except naming Fred’s, Inc. and one of its former officers along with the Company and certain of its officers. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 4, 2019, which is substantially the same as the original complaint. The Company's motion to dismiss to the amended complaint is fully briefed and awaits the Court's ruling. As previously disclosed, the Company was also named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit similar to the M.D. Pa. action filed in State of Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, which was terminated by the court for lack of prosecution in November 2018. In December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous cases filed against an array of defendants by various plaintiffs such as counties, cities, hospitals, Indian tribes and others, alleging claims generally concerning the impacts of widespread opioid abuse. The consolidated multidistrict litigation (“MDL”), captioned In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ("N.D. Ohio"). The Company is named as a defendant in a subset of the cases included in this MDL. The first bellwether trial in the MDL, which had been scheduled for October 2019, was terminated. The MDL court selected several new bellwether cases, including three involving the Company: (1) one to remain in N.D. Ohio, scheduled for trial in November 2020; (2) one to be remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia; and (3) one to be remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs in the West Virginia action subsequently severed their claims against the Company from that matter, and plaintiffs in another bellwether case remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California have added the Company to that case. The Company also has been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits brought in state courts relating to opioid matters. The relief sought by various plaintiffs is compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. Additionally, the Company has received from the Department of Justice and the Attorney Generals of numerous states subpoenas, civil investigative demands, and/or other requests concerning opioid matters. As discussed above, legal proceedings, including government investigations, are often uncertain and difficult to predict, and the costs and penalties incurred in these matters can be substantial. On January 22, 2019, the Company announced that it had reached an agreement to resolve a civil investigation involving allegations under the False Claims Act by a United States Attorney’s Office, working in conjunction with several states, regarding certain dispensing practices. Pursuant to the agreement, the Company paid $209 million to the United States and the various states involved in the matter, substantially all of which was reserved for in the Company’s Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements as of November 30, 2018.