Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees	12 Months Ended
Mar. 03, 2018
Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees
Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees	22. Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees Legal Matters and Regulatory Proceedings The Company is involved in legal proceedings and is subject to investigations, inspections, claims, audits, inquiries, and similar actions by governmental authorities arising in the ordinary course of its business, including, without limitation, the matters described below. The Company records accruals for outstanding legal matters and applicable regulatory proceedings when it believes it is probable that a loss will be incurred, and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal matters and regulatory proceedings that could affect the amount of any existing accrual and developments that would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable, and as a result, warrant an account. If a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish an accrued liability. The Company's contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company's control, including, among other factors: (i) proceedings are in early stages; (ii) whether class or collective action status is sought and the likelihood of a class being certified; (iii) the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (iv) the extent of potential damages, fines or penalties, which are often unspecified or indeterminate; (v) the impact of discovery on the matter; (vi) whether novel or unsettled legal theories are at issue; (vii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (viii) in the case of certain government agency investigations, whether a sealed qui tam lawsuit ("whistleblower" action) has been filed and whether the government agency makes a decision to intervene in the lawsuit following investigation. After the announcement of the proposed Merger between the Company and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (WBA), a putative class action lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (Wilson v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.) by a purported Company stockholder against the Company, its directors (the Individual Defendants, together with the Company, the Rite Aid Defendants), WBA and Victoria Merger Sub Inc. (Victoria) challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger agreement. The complaint alleged primarily that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing to an allegedly unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal protection devices that allegedly prevented the directors from obtaining higher offers from other interested buyers for the Company and allegedly failing to protect against certain purported conflicts of interest in connection with the Merger. The complaint further alleged that the Company, WBA and/or Victoria aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint sought, among other things, to enjoin the closing of the Merger as well as money damages and attorneys' and experts' fees. The matter remains pending, but inactive. Also in connection with the proposed Merger, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the Pennsylvania District Court), asserting a claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 against the Rite Aid Defendants, WBA and Victoria and a claim for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants and WBA (Hering v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.). The complaint in the Hering action alleged, among other things, that the Rite Aid Defendants disseminated an allegedly false and materially misleading proxy and sought to enjoin the shareholder vote on the proposed Merger, a declaration that the proxy was materially false and misleading in violation of federal securities laws and an award of money damages and attorneys' and experts' fees. On January 14 and 16, 2016, respectively, the plaintiff in the Hering action filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a motion for expedited discovery. On January 21, 2016, the Rite Aid Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Hering complaint. At a hearing held on January 25, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court orally denied the plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery and subsequently denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction on January 28, 2016. On March 14, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court appointed Jerry Hering, Don Michael Hussey and Joanna Pauli Hussey as lead plaintiffs for the putative class and approved their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel. On April 14, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court granted the lead plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay the Hering action for all purposes pending consummation of the Merger. On March 17, 2017, the Hering plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay for the purpose of filing a proposed amended complaint. Defendants opposed the motion, and briefing concluded on April 17, 2017. The proposed amended complaint asserted state law breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Individual Defendants, a claim of aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty against Rite Aid, WBA and Victoria, as well as claims for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 against the Rite Aid Defendants, WBA and Victoria, claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against the Rite Aid Defendants, WBA, Victoria and certain WBA executives, and a claim for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants, WBA and Victoria. On August 4, 2017, the Pennsylvania District Court entered an order lifting the stay, noting that the original claims in this matter are now moot, and directed the plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint, with brief in support thereof, on or before September 15, 2017 which deadline was subsequently extended to September 22, 2017. On September 22, 2017, the lead plaintiffs gave notice that plaintiffs Don Michael Hussey and Joanna Pauli Hussey were withdrawing as lead plaintiffs, and that plaintiff Jerry Hering (the Lead Plaintiff) would continue to represent the proposed class in the Hering action going forward. That same day, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which the Pennsylvania District Court granted on November 27, 2017. On December 11, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed the amended complaint (the Amended Complaint), which alleges a claim for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and a claim for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Rite Aid Defendants, WBA, and certain WBA executives. On February 14 and 16, 2018, the Rite Aid Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and an opening brief in support thereof. Lead Plaintiff's answering brief and the Rite Aid Defendants' reply brief are scheduled to be filed on or before April 17 and May 17, 2018, respectively. The Company has been named in a collective and class action lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation, et al., pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store managers working in the Company's stores at various locations around the country. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to pay overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and under certain New York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks other relief, including liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of state and federal claims for overtime pay. On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action. Discovery as to certification issues has been completed. On September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class certification of the New York store manager claims as to liability only, but denied it as to damages, and denied the Company's motion for decertification of the nationwide collective action claims. The Company filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's September 26, 2013 decision which motion was denied in June 2014. The Company subsequently filed a petition for an interlocutory appeal of the Court's September 26, 2013 ruling with the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which petition was denied in September 2014. Notice of the Rule 23 class certification as to liability only has been sent to approximately 1,750 current and former store managers in the state of New York. Discovery related to the merits of the claims is ongoing. On January 12, 2017, the parties reached a settlement in principle of this matter, for an immaterial amount of money, which was subject to preliminary and final approval by the Court. On August 3, 2017, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and notice of the settlement was issued to putative class members on September 7, 2017. On January 11, 2018, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement and the Court's order, the Company funded the settlement, and the settlement administrator has disbursed the settlement funds. The Company is currently a defendant in several lawsuits filed in courts in California alleging violations of California wage-and-hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime, failure to pay for missed meals and rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses and failure to provide employee seating (the "California Cases"). Some of the California Cases purport or may be determined to be class actions and seek substantial damages and penalties. The single-plaintiff and multi-plaintiff California Cases regarding violations of wage-and-hour laws, failure to pay overtime and failure to pay for missed meals and rest periods, in the aggregate, seek substantial damages. The Company believes that its defenses and assertions in the California Cases, as well as other legal proceedings, have merit. The Company has aggressively challenged the merits of the lawsuits and, where applicable, the allegations that the cases should be certified as class or representative actions. Additionally, at this time the Company is not able to predict either the outcome of or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the California Cases and is vigorously defending them. In the employee seating case (Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, San Diego County Superior Court), the Court, in October 2011, granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Company filed its motion for decertification, which motion was granted in November 2012. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the Court's order which appeal was granted in May 2014. The Company filed a petition for review of the appellate court's decision with the California Supreme Court, which petition was denied in August 2014. Proceedings in the Hall case were stayed pending a decision by the California Supreme Court in two similar cases. That decision was rendered on April 4, 2016. A status conference in the case was held on November 18, 2016, at which time the court lifted the stay and scheduled the case for trial on January 26, 2018. The Court continued the trial to June 15, 2018. On February 2, 2018, the Court denied Rite Aid's motion for summary judgment. Following service of subpoenas on the Company in 2011 and 2013 by the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan ("USAO") and the State of Indiana's Office of the Attorney General, respectively, the Company cooperated with inquiries regarding the relationship of Rite Aid's Rx Savings Program to the reporting of usual and customary charges to publicly funded health programs. In January 2017, the USAO, 18 states and the District of Columbia declined to intervene in a sealed False Claims Act ("FCA") action filed by qui tam plaintiff Azam Rahimi ("Relator") in the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On January 19, 2017, the court unsealed Relator's Second Amended Complaint against the Company; it alleges that the Company failed to report Rx Savings prices as its usual and customary charges under the Medicare Part D program and to federal and state Medicaid programs in 18 states and the District of Columbia; and that the Company is thus liable under the federal FCA and similar state statutes. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which is pending. At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. On April 26, 2012, the Company received an administrative subpoena from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA"), Albany, New York District Office, requesting information regarding the Company's sale of products containing pseudoephedrine ("PSE"). In April 2012, it also received a communication from the U.S. Attorney's Office ("USAO") for the Northern District of New York concerning an investigation of possible civil violations of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 ("CMEA"). Additional subpoenas were issued in 2013, 2014, and 2015 seeking broader documentation regarding PSE sales and recordkeeping requirements. Assistant U.S. Attorneys from the Northern and Eastern Districts of New York and the Southern District of West Virginia are currently investigating, but no lawsuits have been filed. Violations of the CMEA could result in the imposition of administrative and/or civil penalties against the Company. The Company has entered into tolling agreements with the United States, and discussions have been held to attempt to resolve these matters with those USAOs and the Department of Justice, but whether any agreements can be reached and on what terms is uncertain. While the Company's management cannot predict the outcome of these matters, it is possible that the Company's results of operations or cash flows could be materially affected by an unfavorable resolution. At this stage of the investigation, Rite Aid is not able to predict the outcome of the investigations. In December 2017, Rite Aid executed a non-prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of West Virginia (countersigned by the government in January 2018), which concluded the previous criminal investigation into Rite Aid's PSE sales. Pursuant to that agreement, the government agreed not to bring any criminal charges against Rite Aid, and Rite Aid agreed to pay an immaterial amount of money as restitution. In June 2013, the Company was served with a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") by the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California (the "USAO") regarding (1) the Company's Drug Utilization Review ("DUR") and prescription dispensing protocol; and (2) the dispensing of drugs designated as "Code 1" by the State of California. The Company cooperated with the investigation, researched the government's allegations, and refuted the government's position. The Company produced documents including certain prescription files related to Code 1 drugs to the USAO's office and the State of California Department of Justice's Bureau of Medical Fraud and Elder Abuse ("CADOJ"). In August 2014, the USAO and 8 states' attorneys general declined to intervene in a California False Claim Act ("FCA") action ("Action") filed under seal in the Eastern District of California by qui tam plaintiff Loyd F. Schmuckley ("Relator") based on DUR and Code 1 allegations. In July 2016, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia also declined to intervene in the Action. On May 15, 2017, Relator and the CADOJ stipulated to dismiss all DUR-related claims and 18 other state-based claims. On September 21, 2017, the CADOJ filed a sealed complaint-in-intervention in the Action, asserting causes under the FCA, for unjust enrichment and for payment by mistake related to the Code 1 allegations. The Action was unsealed on September 26, 2017. On September 28, 2017, Relator filed a First Amended Complaint under the FCA also concerning the Code 1 allegations. The Company filed a motion to dismiss Relator's and CADOJ's respective complaints in January 2018, the hearing was held on March 23, 2018, and the court's order remains pending. At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome of this matter or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to this matter and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. Relator, Matthew Omlansky, filed a qui tam action, State of California ex rel. Matthew Omlansky v. Rite Aid Corporation, on behalf of the State of California against Rite Aid in the Superior Court of the State of California. In his Complaint, Relator alleges that Rite Aid violated the California False Claims Act by (i) failing to comply with California rules governing the Company's reporting of its usual and customary prices; (ii) failing to dispense the least expensive equivalent generic drug in certain circumstances, in violation of applicable regulations; and (iii) dispensing, and seeking reimbursement for, restricted brand name drugs without prior approval. Relator filed his Second Amended Complaint on April 19, 2016. On October 5, 2016, Rite Aid's demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint was granted, with leave for Relator to file an amended complaint. Relator filed his Third Amended Complaint to which Rite Aid filed a second demurrer, which the Court granted with leave for Relator to amend on April 20, 2017. Relator filed his Fourth Amended Complaint on May 1, 2017. On July 7, 2017, the Company's demurrer to the Fourth Amended Complaint was sustained without leave for Relator to amend. The court entered a final judgment of dismissal of each of Relator's claims on August 3, 2017. Relator's deadline to appeal the judgment passed on October 9, 2017. Relator filed an untimely notice of appeal in the action on October 13, 2017, and thereafter moved the California Court of Appeal for the Third District to construe an October 5, 2017 notice of appeal erroneously filed in another action brought by Relator as a timely appeal of this action. The Court of Appeal denied Relator's motion, and the appeal has been dismissed. At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome of this matter or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to this matter and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. The State of Mississippi, by and through its Attorney General, filed a First Amended Complaint against the Company and various purported related entities on September 27, 2016 alleging violations of the Mississippi Medicaid Fraud Control Act, violations of the Mississippi Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, fraud and unjust enrichment. The Complaint alleges the Company failed to accurately report usual and customary prices to Mississippi's Division of Medicaid. On November 14, 2016, the Company filed motions to dismiss based on substantive and jurisdictional grounds, as well as a motion to transfer venue. These motions are pending and the action is stayed while related litigation is resolved on appeal. At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. In December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on multidistrict litigation ordered consolidated numerous cases filed against various defendants by plaintiffs such as counties, cities, hospitals, and third-party payors, alleging claims generally concerning the impacts of widespread opioid abuse. The consolidated multidistrict litigation is In re National Prescription Opioid Litigation (MDL No. 2804), pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. This multidistrict litigation presumptively includes relevant federal court cases that name the Company, including actions filed by several counties in West Virginia; and actions filed by several counties and cities in Michigan. Similar cases that name the Company in some capacity have been filed in state courts, including, among others, cases filed by Shelby County, Tennessee, Shelby County (Tennessee) v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. et al.; several counties and cities in West Virginia, Brooke County (West Virginia) et al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. and City of Huntington (West Virginia) et al. v. Express Scripts Holding Company et al,; and counties in South Carolina, County of Spartanburg (South Carolina) v. Rite Aid of South Carolina, Inc. and County of Greenville (South Carolina) v. Rite Aid of South Carolina, Inc. The Company is vigorously defending all such matters. In addition to the above described matters, the Company is subject from time to time to various claims and lawsuits and governmental investigations arising in the ordinary course of business. While the Company's management cannot predict the outcome of any of the claims, the Company's management does not believe that the outcome of any of these legal matters will be material to the Company's consolidated financial position. It is possible, however, that the Company's results of operations or cash flows could be materially affected by an unfavorable resolution of pending litigation or contingencies.

22. Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

Legal Matters and Regulatory Proceedings

The Company is involved in legal proceedings and is subject to investigations, inspections, claims, audits, inquiries, and similar actions by governmental authorities arising in the ordinary course of its business, including, without limitation, the matters described below. The Company records accruals for outstanding legal matters and applicable regulatory proceedings when it believes it is probable that a loss will be incurred, and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal matters and regulatory proceedings that could affect the amount of any existing accrual and developments that would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable, and as a result, warrant an account. If a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish an accrued liability.

The Company's contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company's control, including, among other factors: (i) proceedings are in early stages; (ii) whether class or collective action status is sought and the likelihood of a class being certified; (iii) the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (iv) the extent of potential damages, fines or penalties, which are often unspecified or indeterminate; (v) the impact of discovery on the matter; (vi) whether novel or unsettled legal theories are at issue; (vii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (viii) in the case of certain government agency investigations, whether a sealed qui tam lawsuit ("whistleblower" action) has been filed and whether the government agency makes a decision to intervene in the lawsuit following investigation.

After the announcement of the proposed Merger between the Company and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (WBA), a putative class action lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (Wilson v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.) by a purported Company stockholder against the Company, its directors (the Individual Defendants, together with the Company, the Rite Aid Defendants), WBA and Victoria Merger Sub Inc. (Victoria) challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger agreement. The complaint alleged primarily that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing to an allegedly unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal protection devices that allegedly prevented the directors from obtaining higher offers from other interested buyers for the Company and allegedly failing to protect against certain purported conflicts of interest in connection with the Merger. The complaint further alleged that the Company, WBA and/or Victoria aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint sought, among other things, to enjoin the closing of the Merger as well as money damages and attorneys' and experts' fees. The matter remains pending, but inactive.

Also in connection with the proposed Merger, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the Pennsylvania District Court), asserting a claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 against the Rite Aid Defendants, WBA and Victoria and a claim for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants and WBA (Hering v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.). The complaint in the Hering action alleged, among other things, that the Rite Aid Defendants disseminated an allegedly false and materially misleading proxy and sought to enjoin the shareholder vote on the proposed Merger, a declaration that the proxy was materially false and misleading in violation of federal securities laws and an award of money damages and attorneys' and experts' fees. On January 14 and 16, 2016, respectively, the plaintiff in the Hering action filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a motion for expedited discovery. On January 21, 2016, the Rite Aid Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Hering complaint. At a hearing held on January 25, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court orally denied the plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery and subsequently denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction on January 28, 2016. On March 14, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court appointed Jerry Hering, Don Michael Hussey and Joanna Pauli Hussey as lead plaintiffs for the putative class and approved their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel. On April 14, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court granted the lead plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay the Hering action for all purposes pending consummation of the Merger.

On March 17, 2017, the Hering plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay for the purpose of filing a proposed amended complaint. Defendants opposed the motion, and briefing concluded on April 17, 2017. The proposed amended complaint asserted state law breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Individual Defendants, a claim of aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty against Rite Aid, WBA and Victoria, as well as claims for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 against the Rite Aid Defendants, WBA and Victoria, claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against the Rite Aid Defendants, WBA, Victoria and certain WBA executives, and a claim for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants, WBA and Victoria. On August 4, 2017, the Pennsylvania District Court entered an order lifting the stay, noting that the original claims in this matter are now moot, and directed the plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint, with brief in support thereof, on or before September 15, 2017 which deadline was subsequently extended to September 22, 2017. On September 22, 2017, the lead plaintiffs gave notice that plaintiffs Don Michael Hussey and Joanna Pauli Hussey were withdrawing as lead plaintiffs, and that plaintiff Jerry Hering (the Lead Plaintiff) would continue to represent the proposed class in the Hering action going forward. That same day, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which the Pennsylvania District Court granted on November 27, 2017. On December 11, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed the amended complaint (the Amended Complaint), which alleges a claim for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and a claim for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Rite Aid Defendants, WBA, and certain WBA executives. On February 14 and 16, 2018, the Rite Aid Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and an opening brief in support thereof. Lead Plaintiff's answering brief and the Rite Aid Defendants' reply brief are scheduled to be filed on or before April 17 and May 17, 2018, respectively.

The Company has been named in a collective and class action lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation, et al., pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store managers working in the Company's stores at various locations around the country. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to pay overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and under certain New York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks other relief, including liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of state and federal claims for overtime pay. On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action. Discovery as to certification issues has been completed. On September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class certification of the New York store manager claims as to liability only, but denied it as to damages, and denied the Company's motion for decertification of the nationwide collective action claims. The Company filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's September 26, 2013 decision which motion was denied in June 2014. The Company subsequently filed a petition for an interlocutory appeal of the Court's September 26, 2013 ruling with the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which petition was denied in September 2014. Notice of the Rule 23 class certification as to liability only has been sent to approximately 1,750 current and former store managers in the state of New York. Discovery related to the merits of the claims is ongoing. On January 12, 2017, the parties reached a settlement in principle of this matter, for an immaterial amount of money, which was subject to preliminary and final approval by the Court. On August 3, 2017, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and notice of the settlement was issued to putative class members on September 7, 2017. On January 11, 2018, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement and the Court's order, the Company funded the settlement, and the settlement administrator has disbursed the settlement funds.

The Company is currently a defendant in several lawsuits filed in courts in California alleging violations of California wage-and-hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime, failure to pay for missed meals and rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses and failure to provide employee seating (the "California Cases"). Some of the California Cases purport or may be determined to be class actions and seek substantial damages and penalties. The single-plaintiff and multi-plaintiff California Cases regarding violations of wage-and-hour laws, failure to pay overtime and failure to pay for missed meals and rest periods, in the aggregate, seek substantial damages. The Company believes that its defenses and assertions in the California Cases, as well as other legal proceedings, have merit. The Company has aggressively challenged the merits of the lawsuits and, where applicable, the allegations that the cases should be certified as class or representative actions. Additionally, at this time the Company is not able to predict either the outcome of or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the California Cases and is vigorously defending them.

In the employee seating case (Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, San Diego County Superior Court), the Court, in October 2011, granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Company filed its motion for decertification, which motion was granted in November 2012. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the Court's order which appeal was granted in May 2014. The Company filed a petition for review of the appellate court's decision with the California Supreme Court, which petition was denied in August 2014. Proceedings in the Hall case were stayed pending a decision by the California Supreme Court in two similar cases. That decision was rendered on April 4, 2016. A status conference in the case was held on November 18, 2016, at which time the court lifted the stay and scheduled the case for trial on January 26, 2018. The Court continued the trial to June 15, 2018. On February 2, 2018, the Court denied Rite Aid's motion for summary judgment.

Following service of subpoenas on the Company in 2011 and 2013 by the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan ("USAO") and the State of Indiana's Office of the Attorney General, respectively, the Company cooperated with inquiries regarding the relationship of Rite Aid's Rx Savings Program to the reporting of usual and customary charges to publicly funded health programs. In January 2017, the USAO, 18 states and the District of Columbia declined to intervene in a sealed False Claims Act ("FCA") action filed by qui tam plaintiff Azam Rahimi ("Relator") in the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On January 19, 2017, the court unsealed Relator's Second Amended Complaint against the Company; it alleges that the Company failed to report Rx Savings prices as its usual and customary charges under the Medicare Part D program and to federal and state Medicaid programs in 18 states and the District of Columbia; and that the Company is thus liable under the federal FCA and similar state statutes. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which is pending. At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.

On April 26, 2012, the Company received an administrative subpoena from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA"), Albany, New York District Office, requesting information regarding the Company's sale of products containing pseudoephedrine ("PSE"). In April 2012, it also received a communication from the U.S. Attorney's Office ("USAO") for the Northern District of New York concerning an investigation of possible civil violations of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 ("CMEA"). Additional subpoenas were issued in 2013, 2014, and 2015 seeking broader documentation regarding PSE sales and recordkeeping requirements. Assistant U.S. Attorneys from the Northern and Eastern Districts of New York and the Southern District of West Virginia are currently investigating, but no lawsuits have been filed. Violations of the CMEA could result in the imposition of administrative and/or civil penalties against the Company. The Company has entered into tolling agreements with the United States, and discussions have been held to attempt to resolve these matters with those USAOs and the Department of Justice, but whether any agreements can be reached and on what terms is uncertain. While the Company's management cannot predict the outcome of these matters, it is possible that the Company's results of operations or cash flows could be materially affected by an unfavorable resolution. At this stage of the investigation, Rite Aid is not able to predict the outcome of the investigations.

In December 2017, Rite Aid executed a non-prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of West Virginia (countersigned by the government in January 2018), which concluded the previous criminal investigation into Rite Aid's PSE sales. Pursuant to that agreement, the government agreed not to bring any criminal charges against Rite Aid, and Rite Aid agreed to pay an immaterial amount of money as restitution.

In June 2013, the Company was served with a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") by the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California (the "USAO") regarding (1) the Company's Drug Utilization Review ("DUR") and prescription dispensing protocol; and (2) the dispensing of drugs designated as "Code 1" by the State of California. The Company cooperated with the investigation, researched the government's allegations, and refuted the government's position. The Company produced documents including certain prescription files related to Code 1 drugs to the USAO's office and the State of California Department of Justice's Bureau of Medical Fraud and Elder Abuse ("CADOJ"). In August 2014, the USAO and 8 states' attorneys general declined to intervene in a California False Claim Act ("FCA") action ("Action") filed under seal in the Eastern District of California by qui tam plaintiff Loyd F. Schmuckley ("Relator") based on DUR and Code 1 allegations. In July 2016, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia also declined to intervene in the Action. On May 15, 2017, Relator and the CADOJ stipulated to dismiss all DUR-related claims and 18 other state-based claims. On September 21, 2017, the CADOJ filed a sealed complaint-in-intervention in the Action, asserting causes under the FCA, for unjust enrichment and for payment by mistake related to the Code 1 allegations. The Action was unsealed on September 26, 2017. On September 28, 2017, Relator filed a First Amended Complaint under the FCA also concerning the Code 1 allegations. The Company filed a motion to dismiss Relator's and CADOJ's respective complaints in January 2018, the hearing was held on March 23, 2018, and the court's order remains pending. At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome of this matter or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to this matter and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.

Relator, Matthew Omlansky, filed a qui tam action, State of California ex rel. Matthew Omlansky v. Rite Aid Corporation, on behalf of the State of California against Rite Aid in the Superior Court of the State of California. In his Complaint, Relator alleges that Rite Aid violated the California False Claims Act by (i) failing to comply with California rules governing the Company's reporting of its usual and customary prices; (ii) failing to dispense the least expensive equivalent generic drug in certain circumstances, in violation of applicable regulations; and (iii) dispensing, and seeking reimbursement for, restricted brand name drugs without prior approval. Relator filed his Second Amended Complaint on April 19, 2016. On October 5, 2016, Rite Aid's demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint was granted, with leave for Relator to file an amended complaint. Relator filed his Third Amended Complaint to which Rite Aid filed a second demurrer, which the Court granted with leave for Relator to amend on April 20, 2017. Relator filed his Fourth Amended Complaint on May 1, 2017. On July 7, 2017, the Company's demurrer to the Fourth Amended Complaint was sustained without leave for Relator to amend. The court entered a final judgment of dismissal of each of Relator's claims on August 3, 2017. Relator's deadline to appeal the judgment passed on October 9, 2017. Relator filed an untimely notice of appeal in the action on October 13, 2017, and thereafter moved the California Court of Appeal for the Third District to construe an October 5, 2017 notice of appeal erroneously filed in another action brought by Relator as a timely appeal of this action. The Court of Appeal denied Relator's motion, and the appeal has been dismissed. At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome of this matter or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to this matter and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.

The State of Mississippi, by and through its Attorney General, filed a First Amended Complaint against the Company and various purported related entities on September 27, 2016 alleging violations of the Mississippi Medicaid Fraud Control Act, violations of the Mississippi Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, fraud and unjust enrichment. The Complaint alleges the Company failed to accurately report usual and customary prices to Mississippi's Division of Medicaid. On November 14, 2016, the Company filed motions to dismiss based on substantive and jurisdictional grounds, as well as a motion to transfer venue. These motions are pending and the action is stayed while related litigation is resolved on appeal. At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.

In December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on multidistrict litigation ordered consolidated numerous cases filed against various defendants by plaintiffs such as counties, cities, hospitals, and third-party payors, alleging claims generally concerning the impacts of widespread opioid abuse. The consolidated multidistrict litigation is In re National Prescription Opioid Litigation (MDL No. 2804), pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. This multidistrict litigation presumptively includes relevant federal court cases that name the Company, including actions filed by several counties in West Virginia; and actions filed by several counties and cities in Michigan. Similar cases that name the Company in some capacity have been filed in state courts, including, among others, cases filed by Shelby County, Tennessee, Shelby County (Tennessee) v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. et al.; several counties and cities in West Virginia, Brooke County (West Virginia) et al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. and City of Huntington (West Virginia) et al. v. Express Scripts Holding Company et al,; and counties in South Carolina, County of Spartanburg (South Carolina) v. Rite Aid of South Carolina, Inc. and County of Greenville (South Carolina) v. Rite Aid of South Carolina, Inc. The Company is vigorously defending all such matters.

In addition to the above described matters, the Company is subject from time to time to various claims and lawsuits and governmental investigations arising in the ordinary course of business. While the Company's management cannot predict the outcome of any of the claims, the Company's management does not believe that the outcome of any of these legal matters will be material to the Company's consolidated financial position. It is possible, however, that the Company's results of operations or cash flows could be materially affected by an unfavorable resolution of pending litigation or contingencies.