Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Aug. 29, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies:
Commitments and Contingencies	14. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters The Company is a party to legal proceedings, investigations and claims in the ordinary course of its business, including the matters described below. The Company records accruals for outstanding legal matters 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 that could affect the amount of any accrual and developments that would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. 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, 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. 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, punitive 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. At this time, 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. The Company’s management believes, however, that this lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. The Company is currently a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits filed in state Courts in California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime, pay for missed meals and rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses and failure to provide employee seating (the “California Cases”). These suits purport to be class actions and seek substantial damages. The Company has aggressively challenged both the merits of the lawsuits and the allegations that the cases should be certified as class or representative actions. With respect to cases involving pharmacist meal and rest periods (Chase and Scherwin v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court and Kyle v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in Sacramento County Superior Court), during the period ended March 1, 2014, the Company recorded a legal accrual with respect to these matters. The Company and the attorneys representing the putative class of pharmacists have agreed to a class wide settlement of the case of $9.0 million subject to final Court approval. The parties are in the process of obtaining Court approval. 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 are stayed pending a decision by the California Supreme Court in two similar cases. With respect to the California Cases (other than Chase and Scherwin and Kyle), the Company, at this time, is not able to predict either the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to said lawsuits. The Company was served with a Civil Investigative Demand Subpoena Duces Tecum dated August 26, 2011 by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan. The subpoena requests records regarding the relationship of Rite Aid’s Rx Savings Program to the reporting of usual and customary charges to publicly funded health programs. In connection with the same investigation, the Company was served with a Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum dated February 22, 2013 by the State of Indiana Office of the Attorney General requesting additional information regarding both Rite Aid’s Rx Savings Program and usual and customary charges. The Company has responded to both of the subpoenas. To enable the parties to discuss a possible resolution, the Medicaid Fraud Control Units of the several states, commonwealths and the District of Columbia and Rite Aid have entered into an agreement tolling the statute of limitations until October 7, 2015. The parties agreed to extend the tolling agreement until April 7, 2016. At this stage of the proceedings, Rite Aid is unable to predict the outcome of any review by the government of such information. In April 2012, the Company received an administrative subpoena from the 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 United States 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”). In April 2013, the Company received additional administrative subpoenas from DEA concerning certain retail PSE transactions at New York stores and the USAO commenced discussions with the Company regarding whether, from 2009 (upon implementation of an electronic PSE transaction logbook system) through the present, the Company sold products containing PSE in violation of the CMEA. The Company received additional administrative subpoenas from the DEA beginning in December 2013 requesting information in connection with an investigation of violations of the CMEA in West Virginia and New York. On September 2, 2015, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia seeking additional information in connection with the investigation of violations of the CMEA in West Virginia. Violations of the CMEA could result in the imposition of administrative, civil and/or criminal penalties against the Company. The Company is cooperating with the government and continues to provide information responsive to the subpoenas. The Company has entered into a tolling agreement with the USAO. Discussions are underway to resolve these matters with the United States Attorney’s Offices for the Northern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York, and the Southern District of West Virginia, but whether an agreement can be reached and on what terms are 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. In January 2013, the DEA, Los Angeles District Office, served an administrative subpoena on the Company seeking documents related to prescriptions by a certain prescriber. The USAO, Central District of California, also contacted the Company about a related investigation into allegations that Rite Aid pharmacies filled certain controlled substance prescriptions for a number of practitioners after their DEA registrations had expired or otherwise become invalid in violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act and DEA regulations. The Company responded to the administrative subpoena and subsequent informal requests for information from the USAO. The Company met with the USAO and DEA in January 2014 and is involved in ongoing discussions with the government regarding this matter. The Company recorded a legal accrual during the period ended March 1, 2014. The Company was served with a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) dated June 21, 2013 by the USAO for the Eastern District of California and the Attorney General’s Office of the State of California (the “AG”). The CID requests records and responses to interrogatories regarding Rite Aid’s Drug Utilization Review and prescription dispensing protocol and the dispensing of drugs designated “Code 1” by the State of California. The Company is in the process of producing responsive documents and interrogatory responses to the USAO and AG and is unable to predict the timing or outcome of any review by the government of such information. 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. Contingencies The California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”), the agency responsible for administering the State of California Medicaid program, implemented retroactive reimbursement rate reductions effective June 1, 2011, impacting the medical provider community in California, including pharmacies. Numerous medical providers, including representatives of both chain and independent pharmacies, filed suits against DHCS in Federal District Court in California and obtained preliminary injunctions against the rate cuts, subject to a trial on the merits. DHCS appealed the preliminary injunctions to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which Court vacated the injunctions. Based upon the actions of DHCS and the decision of the Appeals Court, the Company recorded an appropriate accrual. In January 2014, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved a state plan amendment that excluded certain drugs from the retroactive reimbursement rate reductions effective March 31, 2012. Accordingly, the Company adjusted its accrual during that fiscal year to take into account this exclusion. As pertinent facts and circumstances develop, this accrual may be adjusted further.

14. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

The Company is a party to legal proceedings, investigations and claims in the ordinary course of its business, including the matters described below. The Company records accruals for outstanding legal matters 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 that could affect the amount of any accrual and developments that would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. 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, 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.

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, punitive 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. At this time, 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. The Company’s management believes, however, that this lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.

The Company is currently a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits filed in state Courts in California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime, pay for missed meals and rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses and failure to provide employee seating (the “California Cases”). These suits purport to be class actions and seek substantial damages. The Company has aggressively challenged both the merits of the lawsuits and the allegations that the cases should be certified as class or representative actions.

With respect to cases involving pharmacist meal and rest periods (Chase and Scherwin v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court and Kyle v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in Sacramento County Superior Court), during the period ended March 1, 2014, the Company recorded a legal accrual with respect to these matters. The Company and the attorneys representing the putative class of pharmacists have agreed to a class wide settlement of the case of $9.0 million subject to final Court approval. The parties are in the process of obtaining Court approval.

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 are stayed pending a decision by the California Supreme Court in two similar cases. With respect to the California Cases (other than Chase and Scherwin and Kyle), the Company, at this time, is not able to predict either the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to said lawsuits.

The Company was served with a Civil Investigative Demand Subpoena Duces Tecum dated August 26, 2011 by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan. The subpoena requests records regarding the relationship of Rite Aid’s Rx Savings Program to the reporting of usual and customary charges to publicly funded health programs. In connection with the same investigation, the Company was served with a Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum dated February 22, 2013 by the State of Indiana Office of the Attorney General requesting additional information regarding both Rite Aid’s Rx Savings Program and usual and customary charges. The Company has responded to both of the subpoenas. To enable the parties to discuss a possible resolution, the Medicaid Fraud Control Units of the several states, commonwealths and the District of Columbia and Rite Aid have entered into an agreement tolling the statute of limitations until October 7, 2015. The parties agreed to extend the tolling agreement until April 7, 2016. At this stage of the proceedings, Rite Aid is unable to predict the outcome of any review by the government of such information.

In April 2012, the Company received an administrative subpoena from the 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 United States 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”). In April 2013, the Company received additional administrative subpoenas from DEA concerning certain retail PSE transactions at New York stores and the USAO commenced discussions with the Company regarding whether, from 2009 (upon implementation of an electronic PSE transaction logbook system) through the present, the Company sold products containing PSE in violation of the CMEA. The Company received additional administrative subpoenas from the DEA beginning in December 2013 requesting information in connection with an investigation of violations of the CMEA in West Virginia and New York. On September 2, 2015, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia seeking additional information in connection with the investigation of violations of the CMEA in West Virginia. Violations of the CMEA could result in the imposition of administrative, civil and/or criminal penalties against the Company. The Company is cooperating with the government and continues to provide information responsive to the subpoenas. The Company has entered into a tolling agreement with the USAO. Discussions are underway to resolve these matters with the United States Attorney’s Offices for the Northern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York, and the Southern District of West Virginia, but whether an agreement can be reached and on what terms are 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.

In January 2013, the DEA, Los Angeles District Office, served an administrative subpoena on the Company seeking documents related to prescriptions by a certain prescriber. The USAO, Central District of California, also contacted the Company about a related investigation into allegations that Rite Aid pharmacies filled certain controlled substance prescriptions for a number of practitioners after their DEA registrations had expired or otherwise become invalid in violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act and DEA regulations. The Company responded to the administrative subpoena and subsequent informal requests for information from the USAO. The Company met with the USAO and DEA in January 2014 and is involved in ongoing discussions with the government regarding this matter. The Company recorded a legal accrual during the period ended March 1, 2014.

The Company was served with a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) dated June 21, 2013 by the USAO for the Eastern District of California and the Attorney General’s Office of the State of California (the “AG”). The CID requests records and responses to interrogatories regarding Rite Aid’s Drug Utilization Review and prescription dispensing protocol and the dispensing of drugs designated “Code 1” by the State of California. The Company is in the process of producing responsive documents and interrogatory responses to the USAO and AG and is unable to predict the timing or outcome of any review by the government of such information.

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.

Contingencies

The California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”), the agency responsible for administering the State of California Medicaid program, implemented retroactive reimbursement rate reductions effective June 1, 2011, impacting the medical provider community in California, including pharmacies. Numerous medical providers, including representatives of both chain and independent pharmacies, filed suits against DHCS in Federal District Court in California and obtained preliminary injunctions against the rate cuts, subject to a trial on the merits. DHCS appealed the preliminary injunctions to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which Court vacated the injunctions. Based upon the actions of DHCS and the decision of the Appeals Court, the Company recorded an appropriate accrual. In January 2014, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved a state plan amendment that excluded certain drugs from the retroactive reimbursement rate reductions effective March 31, 2012. Accordingly, the Company adjusted its accrual during that fiscal year to take into account this exclusion. As pertinent facts and circumstances develop, this accrual may be adjusted further.