Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees	3 Months Ended
May 30, 2020
Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees
Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees	15. Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees Legal Matters and Regulatory Proceedings The Company is involved in numerous legal matters including litigation, arbitration, and other claims, and is subject to regulatory proceedings including investigations, inspections, audits, inquiries, and similar actions by pharmacy, health care, tax and other 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 has been 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 accrual. If a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish an accrued liability. None of the Company’s accruals for outstanding legal matters or regulatory proceedings are material individually or in the aggregate to the Company’s consolidated financial position. 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 qui tam lawsuit (“whistleblower” action) has been filed and whether the government agency makes a decision to intervene in the lawsuit following investigation. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of any of the contingencies, the Company’s management does not believe that the outcome of any of these legal matters or regulatory proceedings will be material to the Company’s consolidated financial position. It is possible, however, the Company’s results of operations or cash flows could be materially affected by unfavorable outcomes in outstanding legal matters or regulatory proceedings. California Employment Litigation. The Company is currently a defendant in several lawsuits filed in courts in California that contain allegations regarding violations of the California Business and Professions Code, various California employment laws and regulations, industry wage orders, wage-and-hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime, failure to pay premiums for missed meals and rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses (the “California Cases”). Some of the California Cases purport or may be determined to be class actions or PAGA representative actions and seek substantial damages and penalties. These single-plaintiff and multi-plaintiff California Cases in the aggregate, seek substantial damages. The Company believes that its defenses and assertions in the California Cases have merit. The Company has aggressively challenged the merits of the lawsuits and, where applicable, allegations that the lawsuits 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 defending itself against these claims Usual and Customary and DUR/Code 1 Litigation. In January 2017, qui tam plaintiff Azam Rahimi (“Relator”) filed a sealed False Claims Act (“FCA”) lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan, 18 states, and the District of Columbia declined to intervene. The unsealed lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to report Rite Aid’s Rx Savings Program prices as its usual and customary charges under the Medicare Part D program, federal and state Medicaid programs, and other publicly funded health care programs, and that the Company is thus liable under the federal FCA and similar state statutes. On December 12, 2019, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss and judgment on the pleadings based upon the FCA’s public disclosure bar. The Relator filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. The Relator has appealed from the order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, and also from the order denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 defending itself against these claims. The State of Mississippi, by and through its Attorney General, filed a lawsuit against the Company and various purported related entities on September 27, 2016 alleging the Company failed to accurately report usual and customary prices to Mississippi’s Division of Medicaid. 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 defending itself against these claims. The Company is involved in a putative consumer class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California captioned Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp. A separate lawsuit, Robert Josten v. Rite Aid Corp., was consolidated with this lawsuit in November, 2019. The lawsuit contains allegations that (i) the Company was obligated to charge the plaintiffs’ insurance companies a “usual and customary” price for their prescription drugs; and (ii) the Company failed to do so because the prices it reported were not equal to or adjusted to account for the prices that Rite Aid offers to uninsured and underinsured customers through its Rx Savings Program. At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome or estimate a potential range of loss and is defending itself against these claims. On February 6, 2019, Humana, Inc, filed an arbitration claim alleging that the Company improperly submitted various usual and customary overcharges by failing to report its Rx Savings Program pricing to Humana. At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome of this arbitration proceeding or estimate a potential range of loss, and is defending itself against these claims. 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 lawsuit 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 lawsuit. 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 defending itself against these claims. Controlled Substances Litigation, Audits and Investigations The Company along with various other defendants are named in multiple opioid-related lawsuits filed by counties, cities, municipalities, Native American tribes, hospitals, third-party payers, and others across the United States. In December 2017, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated and transferred hundreds of federal opioid-related lawsuits that name the Company and/or a related entity as a defendant to the multi-district litigation (“MDL”) pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio before Judge Dan Polster under In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (Case No. 17-MD-2804). A significant number of similar cases that are not part of the MDL and name the Company and/or a related entity or entities as a defendant in also are pending in state courts. The plaintiffs in all of these opioid-related lawsuits generally allege claims concerning the impacts of widespread opioid abuse against defendants along the pharmaceutical supply chain, including manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and retail pharmacies. At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of the opioid-related lawsuits or estimate a potential range of loss regarding the lawsuits. The Company is defending itself against all relevant claims. The Company also has received warrants, subpoenas, CIDs, and other requests for documents and information from, and is being investigated by, the federal and state governments regarding opioids and other controlled substances. The Company has been cooperating with and responding to these investigatory inquiries. Miscellaneous Litigation and Investigations. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) is investigating trading in the Company’s securities that occurred in or around January 2017, and has subpoenaed information from the Company in connection with that investigation. The Company is cooperating with the SEC in this matter. 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 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. These other legal proceedings include claims of improper disclosure of personal information, anticompetitive practices, general contractual matters, product liability, professional malpractice, non-compliance with state and federal regulatory regimes, marketing misconduct, intellectual property litigation and employment litigation. Some of these other legal proceedings are or are purported to be class actions or derivative claims. The Company is defending itself against the claims brought in these matters.

Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

3 Months Ended

May 30, 2020

Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

15. Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

Legal Matters and Regulatory Proceedings

The Company is involved in numerous legal matters including litigation, arbitration, and other claims, and is subject to regulatory proceedings including investigations, inspections, audits, inquiries, and similar actions by pharmacy, health care, tax and other 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 has been 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 accrual. If a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish an accrued liability. None of the Company’s accruals for outstanding legal matters or regulatory proceedings are material individually or in the aggregate to the Company’s consolidated financial position.

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 qui tam lawsuit (“whistleblower” action) has been filed and whether the government agency makes a decision to intervene in the lawsuit following investigation. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of any of the contingencies, the Company’s management does not believe that the outcome of any of these legal matters or regulatory proceedings will be material to the Company’s consolidated financial position. It is possible, however, the Company’s results of operations or cash flows could be materially affected by unfavorable outcomes in outstanding legal matters or regulatory proceedings.

California Employment Litigation.

The Company is currently a defendant in several lawsuits filed in courts in California that contain allegations regarding violations of the California Business and Professions Code, various California employment laws and regulations, industry wage orders, wage-and-hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime, failure to pay premiums for missed meals and rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses (the “California Cases”). Some of the California Cases purport or may be determined to be class actions or PAGA representative actions and seek substantial damages and penalties. These single-plaintiff and multi-plaintiff California Cases in the aggregate, seek substantial damages. The Company believes that its defenses and assertions in the California Cases have merit. The Company has aggressively challenged the merits of the lawsuits and, where applicable, allegations that the lawsuits 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 defending itself against these claims

Usual and Customary and DUR/Code 1 Litigation.

In January 2017, qui tam plaintiff Azam Rahimi (“Relator”) filed a sealed False Claims Act (“FCA”) lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan, 18 states, and the District of Columbia declined to intervene. The unsealed lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to report Rite Aid’s Rx Savings Program prices as its usual and customary charges under the Medicare Part D program, federal and state Medicaid programs, and other publicly funded health care programs, and that the Company is thus liable under the federal FCA and similar state statutes. On December 12, 2019, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss and judgment on the pleadings based upon the FCA’s public disclosure bar. The Relator filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. The Relator has appealed from the order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, and also from the order denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 defending itself against these claims.

The State of Mississippi, by and through its Attorney General, filed a lawsuit against the Company and various purported related entities on September 27, 2016 alleging the Company failed to accurately report usual and customary prices to Mississippi’s Division of Medicaid. 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 defending itself against these claims.

The Company is involved in a putative consumer class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California captioned Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp. A separate lawsuit, Robert Josten v. Rite Aid Corp., was consolidated with this lawsuit in November, 2019. The lawsuit contains allegations that (i) the Company was obligated to charge the plaintiffs’ insurance companies a “usual and customary” price for their prescription drugs; and (ii) the Company failed to do so because the prices it reported were not equal to or adjusted to account for the prices that Rite Aid offers to uninsured and underinsured customers through its Rx Savings Program. At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome or estimate a potential range of loss and is defending itself against these claims.

On February 6, 2019, Humana, Inc, filed an arbitration claim alleging that the Company improperly submitted various usual and customary overcharges by failing to report its Rx Savings Program pricing to Humana. At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome of this arbitration proceeding or estimate a potential range of loss, and is defending itself against these claims.

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 lawsuit 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 lawsuit. 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 defending itself against these claims.

Controlled Substances Litigation, Audits and Investigations

The Company along with various other defendants are named in multiple opioid-related lawsuits filed by counties, cities, municipalities, Native American tribes, hospitals, third-party payers, and others across the United States. In December 2017, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated and transferred hundreds of federal opioid-related lawsuits that name the Company and/or a related entity as a defendant to the multi-district litigation (“MDL”) pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio before Judge Dan Polster under In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (Case No. 17-MD-2804). A significant number of similar cases that are not part of the MDL and name the Company and/or a related entity or entities as a defendant in also are pending in state courts. The plaintiffs in all of these opioid-related lawsuits generally allege claims concerning the impacts of widespread opioid abuse against defendants along the pharmaceutical supply chain, including manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and retail pharmacies. At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of the opioid-related lawsuits or estimate a potential range of loss regarding the lawsuits. The Company is defending itself against all relevant claims.

The Company also has received warrants, subpoenas, CIDs, and other requests for documents and information from, and is being investigated by, the federal and state governments regarding opioids and other controlled substances. The Company has been cooperating with and responding to these investigatory inquiries.

Miscellaneous Litigation and Investigations.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) is investigating trading in the Company’s securities that occurred in or around January 2017, and has subpoenaed information from the Company in connection with that investigation. The Company is cooperating with the SEC in this matter. 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 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.

These other legal proceedings include claims of improper disclosure of personal information, anticompetitive practices, general contractual matters, product liability, professional malpractice, non-compliance with state and federal regulatory regimes, marketing misconduct, intellectual property litigation and employment litigation. Some of these other legal proceedings are or are purported to be class actions or derivative claims. The Company is defending itself against the claims brought in these matters.