COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES AND OFF BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS	9 Months Ended
Dec. 03, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES AND OFF BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES AND OFF BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS Guarantees California Department of Industrial Relations: On January 21, 2014, the Company entered into a Collateral Substitution Agreement with the California Self-Insurers' Security Fund to provide collateral related to certain California self-insured workers' compensation obligations pursuant to applicable regulations. The collateral not covered by the California Self-Insurers' Security Fund is covered by surety bonds for the benefit of the State of California Office of Self-Insurance Plans. A portion of the surety bonds is covered by irrevocable LOCs. The collateral requirements are adjusted annually based on semi-annual filings of an actuarial study reflecting liabilities as of December 31 of each year reduced by claim closures and settlements. The related LOC was $1.7 million as of December 3, 2022 and $9.2 million as of February 26, 2022. Lease Guarantees: The Company may have liability under certain operating leases that were assigned to third parties. If any of these third parties fail to perform their obligations under the leases, the Company could be responsible for the lease obligation. Because of the wide dispersion among third parties and the variety of remedies available, the Company believes that if an assignee became insolvent, it would not have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company also provides guarantees, indemnifications and assurances to others in the ordinary course of its business. Legal Proceedings The Company is subject from time to time to various claims and lawsuits, including matters involving trade practices, personnel and employment issues, lawsuits alleging violations of state and/or federal wage and hour laws, real estate disputes, personal injury, antitrust claims, packaging or product claims, claims related to the sale of drug or pharmacy products, such as opioids, intellectual property claims and other proceedings arising in or outside of the ordinary course of business. Some of these claims or suits purport or may be determined to be class actions and/or seek substantial damages. It is the opinion of the Company's management that although the amount of liability with respect to certain of the matters described herein cannot be ascertained at this time, any resulting liability of these and other matters, including any punitive damages, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business or overall financial condition. The Company continually evaluates its exposure to loss contingencies arising from pending or threatened litigation and believes it has made provisions where the loss contingency is probable and can be reasonably estimated. Nonetheless, assessing and predicting the outcomes of these matters involves substantial uncertainties. While management currently believes that the aggregate estimated liabilities currently recorded are reasonable, it remains possible that differences in actual outcomes or changes in management's evaluation or predictions could arise that could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows. False Claims Act: Two qui tam actions alleging violations of the False Claims Act ("FCA") have also been filed against the Company and its subsidiaries. Violations of the FCA are subject to treble damages and penalties of up to a specified dollar amount per false claim. In United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, the relator alleges that Safeway overcharged federal government healthcare programs by not providing the federal government, as part of its usual and customary prices, the benefit of discounts given to customers in pharmacy membership discount and price-matching programs. The relator filed his complaint under seal on November 11, 2011, and the complaint was unsealed on August 26, 2015. The relator amended the complaint on March 31, 2016. On June 12, 2020, the Court granted Safeway's motion for summary judgment, holding that the relator could not prove that Safeway acted with the intent required under the FCA, and judgment was issued on June 15, 2020. On July 10, 2020, the relator filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and to supplement the record, which Safeway opposed. On November 13, 2020, the Court denied relator's motion, and on December 11, 2020, relator filed a notice of appeal. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in the Company's favor on April 5, 2022. On August 3, 2022, relators filed a petition seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court. In United States ex rel. Schutte and Yarberry v. SuperValu, New Albertson's, Inc., et al., also filed in the Central District of Illinois, the relators allege that defendants (including various subsidiaries of the Company) overcharged federal government healthcare programs by not providing the federal government, as a part of usual and customary prices, the benefit of discounts given to customers who requested that defendants match competitor prices. The complaint was originally filed under seal and amended on November 30, 2015. On August 5, 2019, the Court granted relators' motion for partial summary judgment, holding that price-matched prices are the usual and customary prices for those drugs. On July 1, 2020, the Court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the case, holding that the relator could not prove that defendants acted with the intent required under the FCA. Judgment was issued on July 2, 2020. On July 9, 2020, the relators filed a notice of appeal. On August 12, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in the Company's favor. On September 23, 2021, the relators filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the Seventh Circuit. On December 3, 2021, the Seventh Circuit denied relators' petition. On April 1, 2022, relators filed a petition seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court. In both of the above cases, the federal government previously investigated the relators' allegations and declined to intervene. The relators elected to pursue their respective cases on their own and in each case have alleged FCA damages in excess of $100 million before trebling and excluding penalties. The Company is vigorously defending each of these matters and believes each of these cases is without merit. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for these matters. Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) Litigation: The Company (including its subsidiary, Safeway Inc.) is a defendant in a lawsuit filed on January 21, 2021, in Minnesota state court, captioned Health Care Service Corp. et al. v. Albertsons Companies, LLC, et al. The action challenges certain prescription-drug prices reported by the Company to a pharmacy benefit manager, Prime Therapeutics LLC ("Prime"), which in turn contracted with the health-insurer plaintiffs to adjudicate and process prescription-drug reimbursement claims. On December 7, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On January 14, 2022, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss as to all but one count, plaintiffs' claim of negligent misrepresentation. On January 21, 2022, the Company and co-defendant SUPERVALU, Inc. ("SUPERVALU") filed a third-party complaint against Prime, asserting various claims, including: indemnification, fraud and unjust enrichment. On February 17, 2022, the Company filed in the Minnesota Court of Appeals an interlocutory appeal of the denial of their motion to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds (the "Jurisdictional Appeal"). On February 24, 2022, the Company and SUPERVALU filed in the trial court an unopposed motion to stay proceedings, pending the resolution of the Jurisdictional Appeal. The parties agreed on March 6, 2022, to an interim stay in the trial court pending a ruling on the unopposed motion to stay proceedings. On September 6, 2022, the Minnesota Court of Appeals denied the Jurisdictional Appeal and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the Company’s motion to dismiss. On October 6, 2022, the Company and SUPERVALU filed a petition seeking review by the Minnesota Supreme Court. On November 23, 2022, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied that petition. The Company and co-defendant SUPERVALU have until January 23, 2023, to file an answer to the complaint. Prime has until February 1, 2023, to respond to the third-party complaint filed by the Company and SUPERVALU. The Company is vigorously defending the claims filed against it, and believes the claims are without merit. The Company also intends to prosecute its claims against Prime with equal vigor. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for this matter. Opioid Litigation: The Company is one of dozens of companies that have been named in various lawsuits alleging that defendants contributed to the national opioid epidemic. At present, the Company is named in over 100 suits pending in various state courts as well as in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, where over 2,000 cases have been consolidated as Multi-District Litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Most of these cases have been stayed pending bellwether trials. At present, the most active case is a matter in New Mexico state court where trial began on September 6, 2022. Prior to the start of trial, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the New Mexico matter. The Company has since executed that settlement agreement. The Company also executed an agreement to settle a matter pending in Nevada state court. The Company had recorded an estimated liability for these settlements. For the remaining claims, the Company believes that it has substantial factual and legal defenses to these claims, and is vigorously defending these matters. Cases filed by Tarrant County (Texas), Dallas County (Texas) and Washington County (Utah) are proceeding through discovery. A case filed by Santa Fe County (New Mexico) has been stayed indefinitely, as that plaintiff county considers possible adoption of the aforementioned settlement executed with the state of New Mexico. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company is unable to determine the probability of the outcome of these remaining matters or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. Oregon Class Action: A class action lawsuit entitled Schearon Stewart and Jason Stewart v. Safeway Inc. is pending in Circuit Court, County of Multnomah, State of Oregon, in which Safeway is alleged to have engaged in unfair trade practices, in violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (ORS 646.608), regarding the sale of certain meat products in 2015 and 2016 in the state of Oregon with its "Buy One, Get One Free" and similar promotions. Safeway denies plaintiffs' claim and is vigorously defending itself in the matter. On December 19, 2022, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment which is pending. On December 22, 2022, the Court certified the lawsuit as a class action. Trial is scheduled to commence on March 6, 2023, if Safeway's motion for summary judgment is denied. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for this matter. FACTA: On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled Martin v. Safeway was filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, alleging the Company failed to comply with the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") by printing receipts that failed to adequately mask payment card numbers as required by FACTA. The plaintiff claims the violation was "willful" and exposes the Company to statutory damages provided for in FACTA. On January 8, 2020, the Company commenced mediation discussions with plaintiff's counsel and reached a settlement in principle on February 24, 2020. On May 4, 2022, the court approved the negotiated settlement and entered a final judgment dismissing the lawsuit. Pursuant to the settlement, funds have been paid to a claims administrator, who will oversee the processing of claims. Plated Litigation: On September 1, 2020, a complaint entitled Shareholder Representative Services LLC v. Albertsons Companies Inc. was filed in Delaware Chancery Court where Shareholder Representative Services LLC sued on behalf of former stockholders and rightsholders of DineInFresh, Inc. d/b/a Plated ("Plated"). Plaintiff alleged that, following the Company's acquisition of Plated, pursuant to a September 19, 2017 Agreement and Plan of Merger, the Company intentionally engaged in conduct to prevent Plated from reaching certain milestones that would have resulted in post-acquisition consideration paid to Plated stockholders and rightsholders. Plaintiff alleged breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraudulent inducement. On October 21, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 7, 2021, the Court granted the motion in part, dismissing all claims except for the breach-of-contract claim. The Company is vigorously defending itself in the lawsuit and believes that the case is without merit. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for this matter. Other Commitments In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into various supply contracts to purchase products for resale and purchase and service contracts for fixed asset and information technology commitments. These contracts typically include volume commitments or fixed expiration dates, termination provisions and other standard contractual considerations.

California Department of Industrial Relations: On January 21, 2014, the Company entered into a Collateral Substitution Agreement with the California Self-Insurers' Security Fund to provide collateral related to certain California self-insured workers' compensation obligations pursuant to applicable regulations. The collateral not covered by the California Self-Insurers' Security Fund is covered by surety bonds for the benefit of the State of

California Office of Self-Insurance Plans. A portion of the surety bonds is covered by irrevocable LOCs. The collateral requirements are adjusted annually based on semi-annual filings of an actuarial study reflecting liabilities as of December 31 of each year reduced by claim closures and settlements. The related LOC was $1.7 million as of December 3, 2022 and $9.2 million as of February 26, 2022.

Lease Guarantees: The Company may have liability under certain operating leases that were assigned to third parties. If any of these third parties fail to perform their obligations under the leases, the Company could be responsible for the lease obligation. Because of the wide dispersion among third parties and the variety of remedies available, the Company believes that if an assignee became insolvent, it would not have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company is subject from time to time to various claims and lawsuits, including matters involving trade practices, personnel and employment issues, lawsuits alleging violations of state and/or federal wage and hour laws, real estate disputes, personal injury, antitrust claims, packaging or product claims, claims related to the sale of drug or pharmacy products, such as opioids, intellectual property claims and other proceedings arising in or outside of the ordinary course of business. Some of these claims or suits purport or may be determined to be class actions and/or seek substantial damages. It is the opinion of the Company's management that although the amount of liability with respect to certain of the matters described herein cannot be ascertained at this time, any resulting liability of these and other matters, including any punitive damages, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business or overall financial condition.

The Company continually evaluates its exposure to loss contingencies arising from pending or threatened litigation and believes it has made provisions where the loss contingency is probable and can be reasonably estimated. Nonetheless, assessing and predicting the outcomes of these matters involves substantial uncertainties. While management currently believes that the aggregate estimated liabilities currently recorded are reasonable, it remains possible that differences in actual outcomes or changes in management's evaluation or predictions could arise that could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows.

In United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, the relator alleges that Safeway overcharged federal government healthcare programs by not providing the federal government, as part of its usual and customary prices, the benefit of discounts given to customers in pharmacy membership discount and price-matching programs. The relator filed his complaint under seal on November 11, 2011, and the complaint was unsealed on August 26, 2015. The relator amended the complaint on March 31, 2016. On June 12, 2020, the Court granted Safeway's motion for summary judgment, holding that the relator could not prove that Safeway acted with the intent required under the FCA, and judgment was issued on June 15, 2020. On July 10, 2020, the relator filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and to supplement the record, which Safeway opposed. On November 13, 2020, the Court denied relator's motion, and on December 11, 2020, relator filed a notice of appeal. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in the Company's favor on April 5, 2022. On August 3, 2022, relators filed a petition seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

federal government healthcare programs by not providing the federal government, as a part of usual and customary prices, the benefit of discounts given to customers who requested that defendants match competitor prices. The complaint was originally filed under seal and amended on November 30, 2015. On August 5, 2019, the Court granted relators' motion for partial summary judgment, holding that price-matched prices are the usual and customary prices for those drugs. On July 1, 2020, the Court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the case, holding that the relator could not prove that defendants acted with the intent required under the FCA. Judgment was issued on July 2, 2020. On July 9, 2020, the relators filed a notice of appeal. On August 12, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in the Company's favor. On September 23, 2021, the relators filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the Seventh Circuit. On December 3, 2021, the Seventh Circuit denied relators' petition. On April 1, 2022, relators filed a petition seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In both of the above cases, the federal government previously investigated the relators' allegations and declined to intervene. The relators elected to pursue their respective cases on their own and in each case have alleged FCA damages in excess of $100 million before trebling and excluding penalties. The Company is vigorously defending each of these matters and believes each of these cases is without merit. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for these matters.

Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) Litigation: The Company (including its subsidiary, Safeway Inc.) is a defendant in a lawsuit filed on January 21, 2021, in Minnesota state court, captioned Health Care Service Corp. et al. v. Albertsons Companies, LLC, et al. The action challenges certain prescription-drug prices reported by the Company to a pharmacy benefit manager, Prime Therapeutics LLC ("Prime"), which in turn contracted with the health-insurer plaintiffs to adjudicate and process prescription-drug reimbursement claims.

On December 7, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On January 14, 2022, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss as to all but one count, plaintiffs' claim of negligent misrepresentation. On January 21, 2022, the Company and co-defendant SUPERVALU, Inc. ("SUPERVALU") filed a third-party complaint against Prime, asserting various claims, including: indemnification, fraud and unjust enrichment. On February 17, 2022, the Company filed in the Minnesota Court of Appeals an interlocutory appeal of the denial of their motion to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds (the "Jurisdictional Appeal"). On February 24, 2022, the Company and SUPERVALU filed in the trial court an unopposed motion to stay proceedings, pending the resolution of the Jurisdictional Appeal. The parties agreed on March 6, 2022, to an interim stay in the trial court pending a ruling on the unopposed motion to stay proceedings. On September 6, 2022, the Minnesota Court of Appeals denied the Jurisdictional Appeal and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the Company’s motion to dismiss. On October 6, 2022, the Company and SUPERVALU filed a petition seeking review by the Minnesota Supreme Court. On November 23, 2022, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied that petition. The Company and co-defendant SUPERVALU have until January 23, 2023, to file an answer to the complaint. Prime has until February 1, 2023, to respond to the third-party complaint filed by the Company and SUPERVALU.

Opioid Litigation: The Company is one of dozens of companies that have been named in various lawsuits alleging that defendants contributed to the national opioid epidemic. At present, the Company is named in over 100 suits pending in various state courts as well as in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, where over 2,000 cases have been consolidated as Multi-District Litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Most of these cases have been stayed pending bellwether trials. At present, the most active case is a matter in New Mexico state court where trial began on September 6, 2022. Prior to the start of trial, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the New Mexico matter. The Company has since executed that settlement agreement. The Company also executed an agreement to settle a matter pending in Nevada state court. The Company had recorded

an estimated liability for these settlements. For the remaining claims, the Company believes that it has substantial factual and legal defenses to these claims, and is vigorously defending these matters. Cases filed by Tarrant County (Texas), Dallas County (Texas) and Washington County (Utah) are proceeding through discovery. A case filed by Santa Fe County (New Mexico) has been stayed indefinitely, as that plaintiff county considers possible adoption of the aforementioned settlement executed with the state of New Mexico. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company is unable to determine the probability of the outcome of these remaining matters or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any.

Oregon Class Action: A class action lawsuit entitled Schearon Stewart and Jason Stewart v. Safeway Inc. is pending in Circuit Court, County of Multnomah, State of Oregon, in which Safeway is alleged to have engaged in unfair trade practices, in violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (ORS 646.608), regarding the sale of certain meat products in 2015 and 2016 in the state of Oregon with its "Buy One, Get One Free" and similar promotions. Safeway denies plaintiffs' claim and is vigorously defending itself in the matter.

On December 19, 2022, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment which is pending. On December 22, 2022, the Court certified the lawsuit as a class action. Trial is scheduled to commence on March 6, 2023, if Safeway's motion for summary judgment is denied. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for this matter.

FACTA: On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled Martin v. Safeway was filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, alleging the Company failed to comply with the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") by printing receipts that failed to adequately mask payment card numbers as required by FACTA. The plaintiff claims the violation was "willful" and exposes the Company to statutory damages provided for in FACTA. On January 8, 2020, the Company commenced mediation discussions with plaintiff's counsel and reached a settlement in principle on February 24, 2020. On May 4, 2022, the court approved the negotiated settlement and entered a final judgment dismissing the lawsuit. Pursuant to the settlement, funds have been paid to a claims administrator, who will oversee the processing of claims.

Plated Litigation: On September 1, 2020, a complaint entitled Shareholder Representative Services LLC v. Albertsons Companies Inc. was filed in Delaware Chancery Court where Shareholder Representative Services LLC sued on behalf of former stockholders and rightsholders of DineInFresh, Inc. d/b/a Plated ("Plated"). Plaintiff alleged that, following the Company's acquisition of Plated, pursuant to a September 19, 2017 Agreement and Plan of Merger, the Company intentionally engaged in conduct to prevent Plated from reaching certain milestones that would have resulted in post-acquisition consideration paid to Plated stockholders and rightsholders. Plaintiff alleged breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraudulent inducement. On October 21, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 7, 2021, the Court granted the motion in part, dismissing all claims except for the breach-of-contract claim. The Company is vigorously defending itself in the lawsuit and believes that the case is without merit. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for this matter.