COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

4 Months Ended

May 25, 2024

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company continuously evaluates contingencies based upon the best available evidence.

The Company believes that allowances for loss have been provided to the extent necessary and that its assessment of contingencies is reasonable.  To the extent that resolution of contingencies results in amounts that vary from the Company’s estimates, future earnings will be charged or credited.

The principal contingencies are described below:

Insurance — The Company’s workers’ compensation risks are self-insured in most states. In addition, other workers’ compensation risks and certain levels of insured general liability risks are based on retrospective premium plans, deductible plans and self-insured retention plans.  The liability for workers’ compensation risks is accounted for on a present value basis.  Actual claim settlements and expenses incident thereto may differ from the provisions for loss.  Property risks have been underwritten by a subsidiary and are all reinsured with unrelated insurance companies.  Operating divisions and subsidiaries have paid premiums, and the insurance subsidiary has provided loss allowances, based upon actuarially determined estimates.

Litigation — Various claims and lawsuits arising in the normal course of business, including personal injury, contract disputes, employment discrimination, wage and hour and other regulatory claims are pending against the Company. Some of these suits purport or have been determined to be class actions and/or seek substantial damages. Although it is not possible at this time to evaluate the merits of all of these claims and lawsuits, nor their likelihood of success, the Company is of the belief that any resulting liability will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

The Company continually evaluates its exposure to loss contingencies arising from pending or threatened litigation and believes it has made provisions where it is reasonably possible to estimate and when an adverse outcome is probable. Nonetheless, assessing and predicting the outcomes of these matters involves substantial uncertainties. Management currently believes that the aggregate range of loss for the Company’s exposure is not material to the Company. It remains possible that despite management’s current belief, material differences in actual outcomes or changes in management’s evaluation or predictions could arise that could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

The Company is one of dozens of companies that have been named in various lawsuits alleging that defendants contributed to create a public nuisance through the distribution and dispensing of opioids.

On September 8, 2023, the Company announced that it reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle the majority of opioid claims that have been or could be brought against Kroger by states in which they operate, subdivisions, and Native American tribes. Along with the execution of certain non-monetary conditions, the Company has agreed to pay up to $1,200 to states and subdivisions and $36 to Native American tribes in funding for abatement efforts, and approximately $177 to cover attorneys’ fees and costs. States, subdivisions, and the Native American tribes will have an opportunity to opt-in to participate in the settlement, and the Company will have full discretion to determine whether there is sufficient participation for the settlement to become effective. If all conditions are satisfied, the settlement would allow for the full resolution of all claims on behalf of participating states, subdivisions and Native American tribes and is not an admission of any wrongdoing or liability.

As a result, the Company concluded that the agreement in principle for the settlement of opioid claims was probable, and for which the related loss was reasonably estimable. Accordingly, in 2023, the Company recognized opioid settlement charges of $1,413, $1,113 net of tax, relating to the nationwide opioid settlement framework. This charge was included in “Operating, general and administrative” in the Company’s Consolidated Statement of Operations.

The agreement in principle described above includes payments of approximately $1,236 and $177, in equal installments over 11 years and 6 years, respectively. As of May 25, 2024, the Company recorded $284 and $1,129 of the estimated settlement liability in “Other current liabilities” and “Other long-term liabilities,” respectively, in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. In the first quarter of 2024, the Company made its first annual payment for $138 into an escrow account, which is recorded in “Prepaid and other current assets” in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. This escrow payment is recorded in “Prepaid and other current assets” within “Changes in operating assets and liabilities” in the Company’s Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows for the first quarter of 2024.

Because of the conditions remaining to satisfy, the Company cannot predict if the agreement will become effective, and whether unfavorable developments may occur. The amount of the actual loss may differ materially from the accrual estimate recorded as of May 25, 2024.

In the first quarter of 2023, the Company recorded a charge of $62 relating to a settlement of opioid litigation claims with the State of West Virginia. The agreed upon settlement framework resolves all opioid lawsuits and claims by the West Virginia Attorney General.

The foregoing settlements are not admissions of wrongdoing or liability by the Company and the Company will continue to vigorously defend against any other claims and lawsuits relating to opioids that the settlements do not resolve.

Assignments — The Company is contingently liable for leases that have been assigned to various third parties in connection with facility closings and dispositions.  The Company could be required to satisfy the obligations under the leases if any of the assignees is unable to fulfill its lease obligations.  Due to the wide distribution of the Company’s assignments among third parties, and various other remedies available, the Company believes the likelihood that it will be required to assume a material amount of these obligations is remote.