Commitments and contingencies	3 Months Ended
Nov. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	Commitments and contingencies The Company is involved in legal proceedings arising in the normal course of its business, including litigation, arbitration and other claims, and investigations, inspections, subpoenas, audits, claims, inquiries and similar actions by governmental authorities in pharmacy, healthcare, tax and other areas. Some of these proceedings may be class actions, and some involve claims for large or indeterminate amounts, including punitive or exemplary damages, and they may remain unresolved for several years. Legal proceedings in general, and securities, class action and multi-district litigation, in particular, can be expensive and disruptive. 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. The Company has been involved or is currently involved in numerous legal proceedings, including litigation, arbitration, government investigations, audits, reviews and claims. These include routine, regular and special investigations, audits and reviews by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), state insurance and health and welfare departments, the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), state Attorneys General, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (the “DEA”), the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) and other governmental authorities. The Company is subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the U.S. and other countries in which it operates. The Company’s business, compliance and reporting practices are subject to intensive scrutiny under applicable regulation, including review or audit by regulatory authorities. As a result, the Company regularly is the subject of government actions of the types described herein. The Company also may be named from time to time in qui tam actions initiated by private parties. In such an action, a private party purports to act on behalf of federal or state governments, alleges that false claims have been submitted for payment by the government and may receive an award if its 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 its 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. 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 suspension or exclusion from participation in government programs. The Company describes below certain proceedings involving the Company in which the amount of loss could be material or the nature of the dispute is qualitatively material. The Company accrues for legal claims when, and to the extent that, the amount or range of probable loss can be reasonably estimated. If only a range of probable loss can be determined, and no one estimate within that range is a better or more probable estimate than any other estimate, the Company accrues the low end of the range. The Company believes there are meritorious defenses with respect to the claims asserted against it, and it intends to defend each of these cases vigorously, as applicable, but there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome. With respect to litigation and other legal proceedings where the Company has determined a material loss is reasonably possible, except as otherwise disclosed, the Company is not able to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that is reasonably possible above any accrued amounts in these proceedings, due to various reasons, including: the existence of factual and legal arguments that, if successful, will eliminate or sharply reduce the possibility of loss; lack of sufficient information about the arguments and the evidence plaintiffs will advance with respect to their damages; some of the cases have been stayed; certain proceedings present novel and complex questions of public policy; legal and factual determinations and judicial and governmental procedure; the large number of parties involved; and the inherent uncertainties related to such legal proceedings. Securities Claims Relating to Rite-Aid Merger On December 11, 2017, purported Rite-Aid shareholders filed an amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the “M.D. Pa. class 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. This lawsuit was settled, fully paid and dismissed with prejudice. In October and December 2020, two separate purported Rite-Aid shareholders filed actions in the same court opting out of the class in the M.D. Pa. class action and making nearly identical allegations and demands for relief as those in the M.D. Pa. class action. On March 5, 2024 the parties reached an agreement to resolve this litigation and the court has prohibited further opt-out litigation with respect to the M.D. Pa. class action. These lawsuits were settled, fully paid and dismissed with prejudice. On March 19, 2021, a putative shareholder filed a derivative suit in the District Court of Delaware (Clem v. Skinner, et al., 21-CV-406 Del Dist. Ct.) against certain current and former Walgreens directors and officers, seeking damages based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and seeking contribution under Section 21D of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with the M.D. Pa. class action. The plaintiff’s allegations in this derivative suit concern the same public statements at issue in the M.D. Pa. class action. The parties reached an agreement to resolve this matter, and on November 25, 2024, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Claims Relating to Opioid Abuse On December 9, 2022, the Company entered into a Multistate Settlement Agreement (the “Multistate Agreement”) which had the potential to resolve a substantial majority of opioid-related lawsuits filed against the Company by the attorneys general of participating states and political subdivisions (the “Settling States”) and litigation brought by counsel for tribes. Under the Multistate Agreement, the Company announced that it expected to settle all opioid claims against it by such Settling States, their participating political subdivisions, and participating tribes for up to approximately $4.8 billion and $155 million, respectively in remediation payments to be paid out over 15 years. The Multistate Agreement provided for the payment of up to approximately $754 million in attorneys’ fees and costs over six years beginning in year two of the Multistate Agreement. The Multistate Agreement, which became effective on August 7, 2023, included no admission of wrongdoing or liability by the Company. The Company has now resolved its litigation with all states, territories, tribes and 99.7% of litigating subdivisions within Settling States or in separate agreements. Estimated liabilities for these settlements are fully accrued. Incentive payments to Settling States with non-participating political subdivisions are subject to reduction and those subdivisions are still entitled to pursue their claims against the Company. The Company will continue to vigorously defend against any litigation not covered by the Multistate Agreement, including private plaintiff litigation. The Company continues to believe it has strong legal defenses and appellate arguments in all of these cases. In the first quarter of fiscal 2023, the Company recorded a $6.5 billion liability associated with the Multistate Agreement and other opioid-related claims and litigation settlements which was reflected in the Consolidated Condensed Statements of Earnings within Selling, general and administrative expenses as part of the U.S. Retail Pharmacy segment. As of November 30, 2024, the Company has accrued a total of $6.6 billion liability associated with the Multistate Agreement and other opioid-related claims and litigation settlements, including $629 million and $6.0 billion of the estimated settlement liability in Accrued expenses and other liabilities, and Accrued litigation obligations, respectively, in the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets. The Company remains a defendant in multiple actions in federal courts alleging claims generally concerning the impacts of widespread opioid abuse, which have been commenced by various plaintiffs. In December 2017, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated many of these cases in a consolidated multidistrict litigation, captioned In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804, Case No. 17-MD-2804), which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (“N.D. Ohio”). The Company is a defendant in the following multidistrict litigation bellwether cases: •Two consolidated cases in N.D. Ohio (Cnty. of Lake, Ohio v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., Case No. 18-op-45032; Cnty. of Trumbull, Ohio v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., Case No. 18-op-45079). In November 2021, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs as to liability, and a second trial regarding remedies took place in May 2022. In August 2022, the court entered orders providing for injunctive relief and requiring the defendants to pay $651 million over a 15-year period to fund abatement programs. The court found that the damages are subject to joint and several liability and as such made no determination as to apportionment. These decisions were appealed to the United States District Court for the Sixth Circuit (the “Sixth Circuit”) on multiple grounds. Following the Sixth Circuit’s certification of an underlying state law issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs’ public nuisance claims were rescinded by an Ohio statute. •Louisiana Assessors Ins. Fund v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., et al., 1:18-op-46223 (M.D. La.). •Pioneer Tele, Coop. Inc. Employee Benefits Plan v. Purdue Pharma LP et al., 1:18-op-46186 (W.D. Okla.). •United Food and Comm. Workers Health and Welfare Fund of Northeastern Pennsylvania v. Purdue Pharma, LP et al., 1:17-op-45117 (E.D. Pa.). •Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25 Health & Welfare Fund v. Purdue Pharma, LP et al., 1:18-op-45002 (E.D. Pa.). The Company also has been named as a defendant in multiple actions brought in state courts relating to opioid matters. A trial date has been set in the following case pending in state court: •Florida (Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc., et al. v. Richard Sackler, et al., Case No. CACE 19-018882, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida - September 2025). The relief sought by plaintiffs in these matters includes compensatory, abatement, restitution and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. Additionally, the Company has received from the DOJ and the Attorneys General of numerous states subpoenas, civil investigative demands, and other requests concerning opioid-related matters. The Company and the DOJ are in active negotiations for potential settlement of purported violations of the federal Controlled Substances Act and the federal False Claims Act in dispensing prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances at its pharmacies nationwide. There are no assurances that a settlement acceptable to both parties will be reached. Usual and Customary Pricing Litigation The Company is defending a number of claims, lawsuits, and investigations alleging that the Company’s retail pharmacies overcharged for prescription drugs by not submitting the correct usual and customary price during the claims adjudication process. The Company has accrued a total liability of $234 million for all usual and customary pricing litigation in Accrued expenses and other liabilities within the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets. On March 23, 2017, a putative class of employee and union benefit funds and individual insureds filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Russo et al. v. Walgreen Co. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-02246) making similar allegations and seeking monetary damages. The plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is fully briefed but was stayed pending the outcome of settlement discussions. The parties reached an agreement to settle this matter, subject to court approvals. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement on November 19, 2024. Additionally, a group of Blue Cross Blue Shield-affiliated plans filed suit in federal and state courts in Illinois making similar allegations and seeking similar damages (BCBSM, Inc. et al v. Walgreen Co. et al., Case 1:20-cv-01853; Healthcare Service Corp. v. Walgreen Co., et al., Case No. 2021 L 000621). Commercial Arbitration Award On June 10, 2022, Everly Health Solutions, formerly known as PWNHealth LLC (“Everly/PWN”), initiated an arbitration with the American Arbitration Association alleging that an agreement between Everly/PWN and the Company was exclusive, and that the Company breached the agreement when it in-sourced certain services previously performed by Everly/PWN related to Covid testing. Everly/PWN also alleged fraudulent inducement, misappropriation, and improper use of PWN’s mark. Everly/PWN sought monetary damages for its alleged claims. On March 19, 2024, the arbitrator issued a Final Award in the amount of $988 million including interest. The Company disputes the alleged claims and the Final Award in part because it believes it is in contravention of a contractual cap on damages, which limits damages to $79 million. The Company has petitioned a federal court in Delaware to vacate the final award, but there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome. The Company has accrued $79 million for this matter in Accrued expenses and other liabilities within the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets. Securities Claims Relating to Decrease in Share Price On July 12, 2024, a purported shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Bhaila v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., 24-cv-05907) against the Company and certain of its executives (together, for the purposes hereof, “Defendants”) alleging that Defendants violated securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the Company’s pharmacy division. In addition, on September 17, 2024, a purported shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefits Fund v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., 24-cv-08559) alleging that the Company and certain current and former executives violated securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts relating to the Company’s U.S. Healthcare segment. The complaints seek monetary damages for alleged losses caused by decreases in the Company’s share price following disclosure of the Company’s performance and business outlook. The two cases have been consolidated. Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuits. Shareholder Derivative Action Relating to Decrease in Share Price Three purported shareholders have filed derivative suits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Tobias v. Wentworth et al., 24-cv-07755 (Aug. 27, 2024); Hollin v. Wentworth et al., 24-cv-08244 (Sept. 10, 2024); Lovoi v. Wentworth et al., 24-cv-09110 (Sept. 27, 2024)) against the Company’s directors and certain of the Company’s officers, and against the Company as a nominal defendant (together, for purposes hereof, “Defendants”), alleging that the individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by willfully or recklessly making and/or causing the Company to make false and misleading statements related to the Company’s internal controls and overall expected performance, thereby artificially inflating the Company’s stock price. The complaints seek damages based on alleged overstatements of the Company’s expected revenue for fiscal 2024, as well as equitable relief including the institution of certain corporate governance measures. The plaintiffs’ allegations in these derivative suits generally concern the same issues and time period (October 12, 2023 to June 26, 2024) as alleged in the Bhaila putative class action. The three derivative suits have been consolidated into a single action. Shareholder Derivative Action Relating to Share Price and Share Repurchases On December 4, 2024, two purported shareholders filed a derivative suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Switter v. Wentworth, et al., 24-cv-01314 (Dec. 4, 2024)) against certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers, and against the Company as a nominal defendant (together, for purposes hereof, the “Defendants”). The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the individual Defendants violated securities laws, breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and were unjustly enriched as a result of alleged misleading statements about the Company’s expected financial performance and business outlook, particularly with respect to the Company’s U.S. Healthcare segment. Plaintiffs also allege that the Company overpaid as a result of repurchasing shares of its common stock at artificially inflated prices. The complaint seeks, on behalf of the Company, damages sustained by the Company as a result of the allegations, certain changes to the Company's governance policies, equitable and/or injunctive relief and restitution and disgorgement of profits obtained by the Defendants.

The Company is involved in legal proceedings arising in the normal course of its business, including litigation, arbitration and other claims, and investigations, inspections, subpoenas, audits, claims, inquiries and similar actions by governmental authorities in pharmacy, healthcare, tax and other areas. Some of these proceedings may be class actions, and some involve claims for large or indeterminate amounts, including punitive or exemplary damages, and they may remain unresolved for several years. Legal proceedings in general, and securities, class action and multi-district litigation, in particular, can be expensive and disruptive.

The Company has been involved or is currently involved in numerous legal proceedings, including litigation, arbitration, government investigations, audits, reviews and claims. These include routine, regular and special investigations, audits and reviews by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), state insurance and health and welfare departments, the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), state Attorneys General, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (the “DEA”), the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) and other governmental authorities.

The Company is subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the U.S. and other countries in which it operates. The Company’s business, compliance and reporting practices are subject to intensive scrutiny under applicable regulation, including review or audit by regulatory authorities. As a result, the Company regularly is the subject of government actions of the types described herein. The Company also may be named from time to time in qui tam actions initiated by private parties. In such an action, a private party purports to act on behalf of federal or state governments, alleges that false claims have been submitted for payment by the government and may receive an award if its 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 its 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. 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 suspension or exclusion from participation in government programs.

The Company describes below certain proceedings involving the Company in which the amount of loss could be material or the nature of the dispute is qualitatively material. The Company accrues for legal claims when, and to the extent that, the amount or range of probable loss can be reasonably estimated. If only a range of probable loss can be determined, and no one estimate within that range is a better or more probable estimate than any other estimate, the Company accrues the low end of the range. The Company believes there are meritorious defenses with respect to the claims asserted against it, and it intends to defend each of these cases vigorously, as applicable, but there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome. With respect to litigation and other legal proceedings where the Company has determined a material loss is reasonably possible, except as otherwise disclosed, the Company is not able to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that is reasonably possible above any accrued amounts in these proceedings, due to various reasons, including: the existence of factual and legal arguments that, if successful, will eliminate or sharply reduce the possibility of loss; lack of sufficient information about the arguments and the evidence plaintiffs will advance with respect to their damages; some of the cases have been stayed; certain proceedings present novel and complex questions of public policy; legal and factual determinations and judicial and governmental procedure; the large number of parties involved; and the inherent uncertainties related to such legal proceedings.

On December 11, 2017, purported Rite-Aid shareholders filed an amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the “M.D. Pa. class 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. This lawsuit was settled, fully paid and dismissed with prejudice.

In October and December 2020, two separate purported Rite-Aid shareholders filed actions in the same court opting out of the class in the M.D. Pa. class action and making nearly identical allegations and demands for relief as those in the M.D. Pa. class action. On March 5, 2024 the parties reached an agreement to resolve this litigation and the court has prohibited further opt-out litigation with respect to the M.D. Pa. class action. These lawsuits were settled, fully paid and dismissed with prejudice.

On March 19, 2021, a putative shareholder filed a derivative suit in the District Court of Delaware (Clem v. Skinner, et al., 21-CV-406 Del Dist. Ct.) against certain current and former Walgreens directors and officers, seeking damages based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and seeking contribution under Section 21D of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with the M.D. Pa. class action. The plaintiff’s allegations in this derivative suit concern the same public statements at issue in the M.D. Pa. class action. The parties reached an agreement to resolve this matter, and on November 25, 2024, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement.

On December 9, 2022, the Company entered into a Multistate Settlement Agreement (the “Multistate Agreement”) which had the potential to resolve a substantial majority of opioid-related lawsuits filed against the Company by the attorneys general of participating states and political subdivisions (the “Settling States”) and litigation brought by counsel for tribes. Under the Multistate Agreement, the Company announced that it expected to settle all opioid claims against it by such Settling States, their participating political subdivisions, and participating tribes for up to approximately $4.8 billion and $155 million, respectively in remediation payments to be paid out over 15 years. The Multistate Agreement provided for the payment of up to approximately $754 million in attorneys’ fees and costs over six years beginning in year two of the Multistate Agreement. The Multistate Agreement, which became effective on August 7, 2023, included no admission of wrongdoing or liability by the Company.

The Company has now resolved its litigation with all states, territories, tribes and 99.7% of litigating subdivisions within Settling States or in separate agreements. Estimated liabilities for these settlements are fully accrued. Incentive payments to Settling States with non-participating political subdivisions are subject to reduction and those subdivisions are still entitled to pursue their claims against the Company.

In the first quarter of fiscal 2023, the Company recorded a $6.5 billion liability associated with the Multistate Agreement and other opioid-related claims and litigation settlements which was reflected in the Consolidated Condensed Statements of Earnings within Selling, general and administrative expenses as part of the U.S. Retail Pharmacy segment. As of November 30, 2024, the Company has accrued a total of $6.6 billion liability associated with the Multistate Agreement and other opioid-related claims and litigation settlements, including $629 million and $6.0 billion of the estimated settlement liability in Accrued expenses and other liabilities, and Accrued litigation obligations, respectively, in the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets.

The Company remains a defendant in multiple actions in federal courts alleging claims generally concerning the impacts of widespread opioid abuse, which have been commenced by various plaintiffs. In December 2017, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated many of these cases in a consolidated multidistrict litigation, captioned In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804, Case No. 17-MD-2804), which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (“N.D. Ohio”). The Company is a defendant in the following multidistrict litigation bellwether cases:

•Two consolidated cases in N.D. Ohio (Cnty. of Lake, Ohio v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., Case No. 18-op-45032; Cnty. of Trumbull, Ohio v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., Case No. 18-op-45079). In November 2021, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs as to liability, and a second trial regarding remedies took place in May 2022. In August 2022, the court entered orders providing for injunctive relief and requiring the defendants to pay $651 million over a 15-year period to fund abatement programs. The court found that the damages are subject to joint and several liability and as such made no determination as to apportionment. These decisions were appealed to the United States District Court for the Sixth Circuit (the “Sixth Circuit”) on multiple grounds. Following the Sixth Circuit’s certification of an underlying state law issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs’ public nuisance claims were rescinded by an Ohio statute.

The relief sought by plaintiffs in these matters includes compensatory, abatement, restitution and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. Additionally, the Company has received from the DOJ and the Attorneys General of numerous states subpoenas, civil investigative demands, and other requests concerning opioid-related matters. The Company and the DOJ are in active negotiations for potential settlement of purported violations of the federal Controlled Substances Act and the federal False Claims Act in dispensing prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances at its pharmacies nationwide. There are no assurances that a settlement acceptable to both parties will be reached.

The Company is defending a number of claims, lawsuits, and investigations alleging that the Company’s retail pharmacies overcharged for prescription drugs by not submitting the correct usual and customary price during the claims adjudication process. The Company has accrued a total liability of $234 million for all usual and customary pricing litigation in Accrued expenses and other liabilities within the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets.

On March 23, 2017, a putative class of employee and union benefit funds and individual insureds filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Russo et al. v. Walgreen Co. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-02246) making similar allegations and seeking monetary damages. The plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is fully briefed but was stayed pending the outcome of settlement discussions. The parties reached an agreement to settle this matter, subject to court approvals. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement on November 19, 2024. Additionally, a group of Blue Cross Blue Shield-affiliated plans filed suit in federal and state courts in Illinois making similar allegations and seeking similar damages (BCBSM, Inc. et al v. Walgreen Co. et al., Case 1:20-cv-01853; Healthcare Service Corp. v. Walgreen Co., et al., Case No. 2021 L 000621).

On June 10, 2022, Everly Health Solutions, formerly known as PWNHealth LLC (“Everly/PWN”), initiated an arbitration with the American Arbitration Association alleging that an agreement between Everly/PWN and the Company was exclusive, and that the Company breached the agreement when it in-sourced certain services previously performed by Everly/PWN related to Covid testing. Everly/PWN also alleged fraudulent inducement, misappropriation, and improper use of PWN’s mark. Everly/PWN sought monetary damages for its alleged claims.

On March 19, 2024, the arbitrator issued a Final Award in the amount of $988 million including interest. The Company disputes the alleged claims and the Final Award in part because it believes it is in contravention of a contractual cap on damages, which limits damages to $79 million. The Company has petitioned a federal court in Delaware to vacate the final award, but there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome. The Company has accrued $79 million for this matter in Accrued expenses and other liabilities within the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets.

On July 12, 2024, a purported shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Bhaila v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., 24-cv-05907) against the Company and certain of its executives (together, for the purposes hereof, “Defendants”) alleging that Defendants violated securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the Company’s pharmacy division. In addition, on September 17, 2024, a purported shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefits Fund v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., 24-cv-08559) alleging that the Company and certain current and former executives violated securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts relating to the Company’s U.S. Healthcare segment. The complaints seek monetary damages for alleged losses caused by decreases in the Company’s share price following disclosure of the Company’s performance and business outlook. The two cases have been consolidated. Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuits.

Three purported shareholders have filed derivative suits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Tobias v. Wentworth et al., 24-cv-07755 (Aug. 27, 2024); Hollin v. Wentworth et al., 24-cv-08244 (Sept. 10, 2024); Lovoi v. Wentworth et al., 24-cv-09110 (Sept. 27, 2024)) against the Company’s directors and certain of the Company’s officers, and against the Company as a nominal defendant (together, for purposes hereof, “Defendants”), alleging that the individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by willfully or recklessly making and/or causing the Company to make false and misleading statements related to the Company’s internal controls and overall expected performance, thereby artificially inflating the Company’s stock price. The complaints seek damages based on alleged overstatements of the Company’s expected revenue for fiscal 2024, as well as equitable relief including the institution of certain corporate governance measures. The plaintiffs’ allegations in these derivative suits generally concern the same issues and time period (October 12, 2023 to June 26, 2024) as alleged in the Bhaila putative class action. The three derivative suits have been consolidated into a single action.

On December 4, 2024, two purported shareholders filed a derivative suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Switter v. Wentworth, et al., 24-cv-01314 (Dec. 4, 2024)) against certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers, and against the Company as a nominal defendant (together, for purposes hereof, the “Defendants”). The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the individual Defendants violated securities laws, breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and were unjustly enriched as a result of alleged misleading statements about the Company’s expected financial performance and business outlook, particularly with respect to the Company’s U.S. Healthcare segment. Plaintiffs also allege that the Company overpaid as a result of repurchasing shares of its common stock at artificially inflated prices. The complaint seeks, on behalf of the Company, damages sustained by the Company as a result of the allegations, certain changes to the Company's governance policies, equitable and/or injunctive relief and restitution and disgorgement of profits obtained by the Defendants.