COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

4 Months Ended

May 24, 2025

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.

Opioids

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 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. The exact payment amount will depend on several factors, including the extent to which states take action to foreclose opioid lawsuits by political subdivisions (e.g., by passing laws barring or limiting opioid lawsuits by political subdivisions), and the extent to which additional political subdivisions in participating states file additional opioid lawsuits against the Company. The settlement provides 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. Certain opioid-related cases against the Company will remain pending in the multidistrict litigation and in various state courts, including those brought by non-participating states and subdivisions and private parties such as hospitals and third-party payors. The Company continues to defend these cases.

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 described above includes payments of approximately $1,236 and $177, in equal installments over 11 years and 6 years, respectively. In 2024, the Company made its first annual payment for $138 into an escrow account, which was recorded in “Prepaid and other current assets” in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. This payment was subsequently released from escrow on February 20, 2025. The Company made its second annual payment of $138 on March 5, 2025. This payment was recorded in “Other” within “Changes in operating assets and liabilities” in the Company’s Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows.

In 2024, certain states and subdivisions confirmed their participation or lack of participation in the agreement described above, which resulted in immaterial changes to the settlement amount and timing of payments. On October 31, 2024, the Company determined that there is sufficient participation in the settlement by states and subdivisions and elected to proceed with the settlement. The settlement with states and subdivisions became effective on December 30, 2024, and the settlement with Native American tribes is currently anticipated to become effective by September 30, 2025. The Company also entered into and finalized separate agreements with certain states and their subdivisions in 2024 and 2025 that resulted in immaterial changes to the settlement amount and timing of payments.

As of May 24, 2025, the Company recorded $148 and $982 of the estimated settlement liability in “Other current liabilities” and “Other long-term liabilities,” respectively, in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets related to these opioid settlements. As of February 1, 2025, the Company recorded $279 and $1,139 of the estimated settlement liability in “Other current liabilities” and “Other long-term liabilities,” respectively, in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets related to these opioid settlements.

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, including private plaintiff litigation. The Company continues to believe it has strong legal defenses and appellate arguments in those cases.

Because of the many uncertainties associated with any settlement arrangement or other resolution of opioid-related litigation matters, and because the Company continues to actively defend ongoing litigation for which it believes it has defenses and assertions that have merit, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the range of ultimate possible loss for all opioid-related litigation matters at this time.

Termination of the Merger with Albertsons Companies, Inc.

As previously disclosed, on October 13, 2022, the Company entered into a merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) with Albertsons Companies, Inc. (“Albertsons”) pursuant to which the Company would have acquired Albertsons. On February 26, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission instituted an administrative proceeding to prohibit the merger and filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon requesting a preliminary injunction to block the merger. On December 10, 2024, the court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the consummation of the merger.

On December 10, 2024, Albertsons sued the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery for alleged breaches of the Merger Agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Albertsons seeks payment of a $600 termination fee that Albertsons alleges it is owed under the Merger Agreement, as well as additional damages, including expenses paid by Albertsons in connection with the Merger and the lost premium Albertsons alleges is owed to its shareholders, as well as other relief.

On December 11, 2024, the Company delivered a notice to Albertsons terminating the Merger Agreement, which notified Albertsons that a prior termination letter sent by Albertsons to Kroger on December 10, 2024 was not an effective termination. In connection with the notice, Kroger notified Albertsons that Kroger has no obligation to pay the $600 termination fee because Albertsons failed to perform and comply in all material respects with its covenants under the Merger Agreement.

On March 17, 2025, the Company filed an answer denying the allegations in Albertsons’s complaint and filed counterclaims that seek recovery for breaches of the Merger Agreement by Albertsons.

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 are unable to fulfill their 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.