Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees	12 Months Ended
Mar. 04, 2023
Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees
Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees	22. Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees Legal Matters and Regulatory Proceedings The Company is regularly involved in a variety of legal matters including arbitration, litigation (and related settlement discussions), audits by counter parties under our contracts, and other claims, and is subject to regulatory proceedings including audits, inspections, inquiries, investigations, and similar actions by health care, insurance, pharmacy, tax and other governmental authorities arising in the ordinary course of its business, including, without limitation, the matters described below. Substantial damages are sought from the Company in virtually all of these matters, even if a specific amount is not specified. 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 or that warrant an accrual. If a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company typically does not establish an accrued liability. Unless specifically noted otherwise, with respect to the litigation and other legal proceedings described below, the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss due to the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of and uncertainties at the current stage of such litigation and legal proceedings. None of the Company’s accruals for outstanding legal matters or regulatory proceedings are currently material, individually or in the aggregate, to the Company’s consolidated financial position. However, during the course of any proceeding, developments may result in the creation or an increase of an accrual that could be material. Additionally, unfavorable or unexpected outcomes in outstanding legal matters or regulatory proceedings could exceed any accrual and impact the Company’s financial position. Further, even if the Company is successful in its legal proceedings, the Company may incur significant costs and expenses defending itself or others that it is required to indemnify, and such costs and expenses may not be subject to or may exceed reimbursement pursuant to any applicable insurance. Such proceedings may also require significant attention of management. The Company’s contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company’s control, including, among other factors: (i) the stage of any proceeding and delays in scheduling; (ii) whether class or collective action status is sought and the likelihood of a class being certified; (iii) the outcome of pending or potential appeals, motions and settlement discussions; (iv) the range and magnitude 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 or advanced; (vii) whether there are significant factual issues to be resolved including findings made by juries; (viii) the exercise of discretion in enforcement actions including 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; (ix) changes in priorities following any change in political administration at the state or federal level; and/or (x) the impact, results and settlements of similar claims made against competitors and other industry participants. Additionally, the Company may determine that a settlement is in its best interest, even if it believes that it has meritorious defenses and has not previously accrued for the matter. 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 (collectively, the “California Cases”). Some of the California Cases purport or may be determined to be class actions or representative actions under the California Private Attorneys General Act and seek substantial damages and penalties. In August 2022, the Company agreed to settle a putative class action regarding reimbursement for cell phone and mileage expenses for shift supervisors and managers/assistant managers for $1.29 million, and a putative wage and hour class action brought on behalf of drivers and other ice cream plant associates for $0.8 million. These settlements are subject to court approval. The Company has also reached an agreement in principle to resolve a putative employment collective and class action filed in federal court in New York, which raises similar allegations in addition to others about the payment frequency for certain employees (the “New York Case”). In December 2022, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the individual plaintiff’s claims as well as those of the class, resulting in the federal court issuing an order of judgment and a new matter filed in New York state court, which the parties have agreed to resolve for $6.45 million. The parties continue to work on a definitive settlement agreement, which will be subject to court approval and the Company expects that it will have the right terminate the agreement if certain participation thresholds are not met. The Company has aggressively defended itself and challenged the merits of these employment lawsuits and, where applicable, allegations that the lawsuits should be certified as class or representative actions. Usual and Customary Litigation. The Company is named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits, including the cases below, that allege that the Company’s retail stores overcharged for prescription drugs by not submitting the price available to members of the Rite Aid’s Rx Savings Program as the pharmacy’s usual and customary price, and related theories. The Company is defending itself against these claims. The Company is a defendant 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 for pre-trial purposes. The lawsuit contains allegations that (i) the Company was obligated to charge the plaintiffs’ insurance companies its usual and customary prices 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 offered to uninsured and underinsured customers through its Rx Savings Program. The Company is defending itself in a second putative class action lawsuit against similar pricing allegations filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On February 6, 2019, Humana, Inc., filed a claim pursuant to a binding arbitration provision of the parties’ agreement alleging that the Company improperly submitted various usual and customary overcharges by failing to report its Rx Savings Program prices as its usual and customary prices to Humana. An arbitration hearing was held in this matter in November 2021. On April 22, 2022, the arbitrator issued an Opinion and Final Award against the Company for breach of contract awarding Humana $122.6 million, which includes $40.7 million in prejudgment interest (the “Arbitration Award”). The Company continues to believe that the Arbitration Award contains a number of significant factual and legal errors. On June 20, 2022, the Company both opposed Humana’s effort to confirm the Arbitration Award and petitioned the United States District Court for Western District of Kentucky for vacatur of the Arbitration Award, as is its right under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). As such, the Company has determined that it is not probable that a loss has occurred. The FAA, as interpreted and applied by federal courts, permits vacatur when, among other things, an arbitrator’s decision: (1) is irreconcilable with the terms of a contract between the parties; (2) rests on a plain legal error that manifests disregard for the law; or (3) incorporates a refusal to consider pertinent, material evidence. Similarly, the FAA, as interpreted and applied by federal courts, permits modification of an arbitrator’s decision to correct an evident material miscalculation of figures. Although the Company cannot make any assurances of success in its efforts, it is the Company’s view that the errors in the Arbitration Award support both vacatur and modification under the FAA, the effect of either of which could be to set aside the Arbitration Award or reduce or eliminate the damages provided for in the Arbitration Award. Argument on Humana’s petition to confirm the Arbitration Award and Rite Aid’s motion for vacatur of the Arbitration Award is scheduled for May 10, 2023. Depending on the court’s determination, it is possible that one or both parties may appeal the decision, or seek other remedies. The Company is a defendant in two consolidated lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota filed in 2020 by various Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans that operate in eight different states (North Carolina, North Dakota, Alabama, Utah, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington and New Jersey) alleging that the Company improperly submitted various usual and customary overcharges to several Pharmacy Benefit Managers, all but one of which are not owned by plaintiffs, with which Rite Aid and the insurers had independent contracts. The Company is also defending a lawsuit filed in Delaware state court in 2019 by multiple Centene entities alleging that the Company overcharged for prescriptions by improperly reporting usual and customary prices. The Delaware lawsuit is scheduled to start trial in May 2023. The Company is defending a similar lawsuit filed in 2022 by WellCare in Florida state court. Drug Utilization Review and Code 1 Litigation In June 2012, qui tam plaintiff, Loyd F. Schmuckley (“Relator”) filed a complaint under seal against the Company alleging that it failed to comply with certain requirements of California’s Medicaid program between 2007 and 2014. 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 regarding (1) the Company’s Drug Utilization Review and prescription dispensing protocol; and (2) the dispensing of drugs designated as “Code 1” by the State of California. Specifically, the Relator alleged that the Company did not perform special verification and documentation for certain medications known as “Code 1” drugs. While the complaint remained under seal, the United States Department of Justice conducted an extensive investigation and ultimately declined to intervene. Although numerous states declined to intervene, in September 2017, the State of California’s Department of Justice’s Bureau of Medical Fraud and Elder Abuse filed a complaint in intervention. The Company filed a motion to dismiss Relator’s and the State of California’s respective complaints in January 2018, and the hearing was held on March 23, 2018. On September 5, 2018, the court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss. Substantial damages are sought from the Company in this matter. No trial date has been set and as discovery continues, the parties have participated in and are expected to continue to participate in a mediation process, although there is no expected date or terms for any potential resolution of this matter. Controlled Substances Litigation, Audits and Investigations The Company, along with various other defendants, is 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 (“JPML”) consolidated and transferred more than a thousand federal opioid-related lawsuits that name the Company as a defendant to the multi-district litigation (“MDL”) pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio 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 as a defendant are also pending in state courts. On June 1, 2022, the JPML ordered that newly filed cases will no longer be transferred to the MDL. The plaintiffs in these opioid-related lawsuits generally allege claims that include, without limitation, public nuisance and negligence theories of liability resulting from 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 in which it remains a defendant or estimate a potential range of loss regarding the lawsuits, and is defending itself against all relevant claims. From time to time, some of these cases may be settled, dismissed or otherwise terminated, and additional such cases may be filed. 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. As previously disclosed, on December 13, 2022, a qui tam complaint filed by three former Rite Aid pharmacy personnel (Andrew White, Mark Rosenberg, and Ann Wegelin) (collectively, “qui tam Relators”) was unsealed by the federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in an order that also directed the United States Department of Justice to file within 90 days a complaint intervening or partially intervening in the Second Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”). On February 23, 2023, the following states, which were listed in the Complaint, declined to intervene: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia. On February 23, 2023, California stated its intention to make an intervention decision on or before May 2, 2023. On March 13, 2023, the United States Department of Justice filed its complaint in the federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Rite Aid (“DOJ’s Complaint”) alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act and Controlled Substances Act related to the dispensing of controlled substances, primarily opioids. DOJ’s Complaint seeks damages under the False Claims Act, civil penalties under the Controlled Substances Act, damages in connection with alleged payment by mistake (on behalf of Federal Healthcare Programs), and damages in connection with alleged unjust enrichment. In April 2019, the Company initiated a coverage action styled Rite Aid Corporation et al. v. ACE American Ins. Co. et al. Through this action, the Company is seeking the recovery of defense costs and settlement and/or judgment costs that may be paid for the opioid-related lawsuits. The action seeks declaratory relief with respect to the obligations of the insurers under the policies at issue in the action and asserts claims for breach of contract and statutory remedies against one of these insurers. Although the trial court determined on the Company’s motion for partial summary judgment that this insurer was obligated to reimburse the Company for its defense costs, on January 10, 2022, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order and ruled that the insurer had no duty to defend the first MDL suits set for trial based on the specific allegations at issue in those cases. The matter has been remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. Miscellaneous Litigation and Investigations. Following the Company’s response to a 2020 CID from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) with respect to consumer protection laws, the Company is seeking to negotiate a resolution with the FTC. The allegations relate to certain business practices that the Company has not engaged in for nearly three years, and the Company currently believes that any resolution will not likely require a monetary payment. Discussions are ongoing with the FTC and the timing and substance of any settlement cannot be determined at this time. During the course of the Company’s discussions with the FTC in connection with its response to that CID, the FTC also requested certain information from the Company related to compliance with the Company’s 2010 FTC Consent Order. The Company cooperated with the FTC's request, however, the FTC Staff informed the Company that it would recommend that the FTC file a complaint against the Company for violation of the Consent Order, including a monetary payment and other relief, unless the Company informs FTC Staff that it is willing to discuss a resolution. The Company is evaluating the matter, including potential resolution, although no assurance can be given that the matter will be resolved to the parties’ mutual satisfaction, or that the resolution will not include a monetary payment, and that the payment will not be material. It is also possible that discussions relating to the 2010 FTC Consent Order could affect the resolution of the 2020 CID. The Company has received CIDs from the Department of Justice related to the Medicare Part D plan sponsored by a subsidiary of the Company. The Company is also defending a lawsuit asserting numerous claims based on allegations surrounding the Company’s use of a certain font including in the Company’s rebranded logo. The Company is defending a putative class action it has removed to federal court in California regarding alleged privacy breaches. The Company is defending a putative shareholder class action currently captioned Page v. Rite Aid Corporation et al., filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The matter names Rite Aid Corporation and certain executives individually as defendants and raises claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to alleged misstatements and omissions concerning the growth of Elixir’s PBM services businesses. The matter remains in early stages, but the Company intends to aggressively defend against the allegations and challenge their merit. The Company is also defending a putative shareholder class action currently captioned Holland v. Rite Aid Corporation et al., filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The matter names Rite Aid Corporation and certain former and current executives individually as defendants and raises claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to the DOJ’s Complaint and alleged misstatements and omissions concerning the Company’s risk for regulatory action and litigation related to controlled substances practices. This matter is also in early stages, but the Company intends to aggressively defend against the allegations and challenge their merit.

Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

12 Months Ended

Mar. 04, 2023

Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

22. Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

Legal Matters and Regulatory Proceedings

The Company is regularly involved in a variety of legal matters including arbitration, litigation (and related settlement discussions), audits by counter parties under our contracts, and other claims, and is subject to regulatory proceedings including audits, inspections, inquiries, investigations, and similar actions by health care, insurance, pharmacy, tax and other governmental authorities arising in the ordinary course of its business, including, without limitation, the matters described below. Substantial damages are sought from the Company in virtually all of these matters, even if a specific amount is not specified. 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 or that warrant an accrual. If a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company typically does not establish an accrued liability. Unless specifically noted otherwise, with respect to the litigation and other legal proceedings described below, the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss due to the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of and uncertainties at the current stage of such litigation and legal proceedings.

None of the Company’s accruals for outstanding legal matters or regulatory proceedings are currently material, individually or in the aggregate, to the Company’s consolidated financial position. However, during the course of any proceeding, developments may result in the creation or an increase of an accrual that could be material. Additionally,

unfavorable or unexpected outcomes in outstanding legal matters or regulatory proceedings could exceed any accrual and impact the Company’s financial position. Further, even if the Company is successful in its legal proceedings, the Company may incur significant costs and expenses defending itself or others that it is required to indemnify, and such costs and expenses may not be subject to or may exceed reimbursement pursuant to any applicable insurance. Such proceedings may also require significant attention of management.

The Company’s contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company’s control, including, among other factors: (i) the stage of any proceeding and delays in scheduling; (ii) whether class or collective action status is sought and the likelihood of a class being certified; (iii) the outcome of pending or potential appeals, motions and settlement discussions; (iv) the range and magnitude 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 or advanced; (vii) whether there are significant factual issues to be resolved including findings made by juries; (viii) the exercise of discretion in enforcement actions including 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; (ix) changes in priorities following any change in political administration at the state or federal level; and/or (x) the impact, results and settlements of similar claims made against competitors and other industry participants. Additionally, the Company may determine that a settlement is in its best interest, even if it believes that it has meritorious defenses and has not previously accrued for the matter.

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 (collectively, the “California Cases”).

Some of the California Cases purport or may be determined to be class actions or representative actions under the California Private Attorneys General Act and seek substantial damages and penalties. In August 2022, the Company agreed to settle a putative class action regarding reimbursement for cell phone and mileage expenses for shift supervisors and managers/assistant managers for $1.29 million, and a putative wage and hour class action brought on behalf of drivers and other ice cream plant associates for $0.8 million. These settlements are subject to court approval.

The Company has also reached an agreement in principle to resolve a putative employment collective and class action filed in federal court in New York, which raises similar allegations in addition to others about the payment frequency for certain employees (the “New York Case”). In December 2022, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the individual plaintiff’s claims as well as those of the class, resulting in the federal court issuing an order of judgment and a new matter filed in New York state court, which the parties have agreed to resolve for $6.45 million. The parties continue to work on a definitive settlement agreement, which will be subject to court approval and the Company expects that it will have the right terminate the agreement if certain participation thresholds are not met.

The Company has aggressively defended itself and challenged the merits of these employment lawsuits and, where applicable, allegations that the lawsuits should be certified as class or representative actions.

Usual and Customary Litigation.

The Company is named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits, including the cases below, that allege that the Company’s retail stores overcharged for prescription drugs by not submitting the price available to members of the Rite Aid’s Rx Savings Program as the pharmacy’s usual and customary price, and related theories. The Company is defending itself against these claims.

The Company is a defendant 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 for pre-trial purposes. The lawsuit contains allegations that (i) the Company was obligated to charge the plaintiffs’ insurance companies its usual and customary prices 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 offered to uninsured and underinsured customers through its Rx Savings Program. The Company is defending itself in a second putative class action lawsuit against similar pricing allegations filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On February 6, 2019, Humana, Inc., filed a claim pursuant to a binding arbitration provision of the parties’ agreement alleging that the Company improperly submitted various usual and customary overcharges by failing to report its Rx Savings Program prices as its usual and customary prices to Humana. An arbitration hearing was held in this matter in November 2021.

On April 22, 2022, the arbitrator issued an Opinion and Final Award against the Company for breach of contract awarding Humana $122.6 million, which includes $40.7 million in prejudgment interest (the “Arbitration Award”). The Company continues to believe that the Arbitration Award contains a number of significant factual and legal errors. On June 20, 2022, the Company both opposed Humana’s effort to confirm the Arbitration Award and petitioned the United States District Court for Western District of Kentucky for vacatur of the Arbitration Award, as is its right under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). As such, the Company has determined that it is not probable that a loss has occurred.

The FAA, as interpreted and applied by federal courts, permits vacatur when, among other things, an arbitrator’s decision: (1) is irreconcilable with the terms of a contract between the parties; (2) rests on a plain legal error that manifests disregard for the law; or (3) incorporates a refusal to consider pertinent, material evidence. Similarly, the FAA, as interpreted and applied by federal courts, permits modification of an arbitrator’s decision to correct an evident material miscalculation of figures. Although the Company cannot make any assurances of success in its efforts, it is the Company’s view that the errors in the Arbitration Award support both vacatur and modification under the FAA, the effect of either of which could be to set aside the Arbitration Award or reduce or eliminate the damages provided for in the Arbitration Award.

Argument on Humana’s petition to confirm the Arbitration Award and Rite Aid’s motion for vacatur of the Arbitration Award is scheduled for May 10, 2023. Depending on the court’s determination, it is possible that one or both parties may appeal the decision, or seek other remedies.

The Company is a defendant in two consolidated lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota filed in 2020 by various Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans that operate in eight different states (North Carolina, North Dakota, Alabama, Utah, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington and New Jersey) alleging that the Company improperly submitted various usual and customary overcharges to several Pharmacy Benefit Managers, all but one of

which are not owned by plaintiffs, with which Rite Aid and the insurers had independent contracts. The Company is also defending a lawsuit filed in Delaware state court in 2019 by multiple Centene entities alleging that the Company overcharged for prescriptions by improperly reporting usual and customary prices. The Delaware lawsuit is scheduled to start trial in May 2023. The Company is defending a similar lawsuit filed in 2022 by WellCare in Florida state court.

Drug Utilization Review and Code 1 Litigation

In June 2012, qui tam plaintiff, Loyd F. Schmuckley (“Relator”) filed a complaint under seal against the Company alleging that it failed to comply with certain requirements of California’s Medicaid program between 2007 and 2014. 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 regarding (1) the Company’s Drug Utilization Review and prescription dispensing protocol; and (2) the dispensing of drugs designated as “Code 1” by the State of California. Specifically, the Relator alleged that the Company did not perform special verification and documentation for certain medications known as “Code 1” drugs. While the complaint remained under seal, the United States Department of Justice conducted an extensive investigation and ultimately declined to intervene. Although numerous states declined to intervene, in September 2017, the State of California’s Department of Justice’s Bureau of Medical Fraud and Elder Abuse filed a complaint in intervention. The Company filed a motion to dismiss Relator’s and the State of California’s respective complaints in January 2018, and the hearing was held on March 23, 2018. On September 5, 2018, the court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss. Substantial damages are sought from the Company in this matter. No trial date has been set and as discovery continues, the parties have participated in and are expected to continue to participate in a mediation process, although there is no expected date or terms for any potential resolution of this matter.

Controlled Substances Litigation, Audits and Investigations

The Company, along with various other defendants, is 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 (“JPML”) consolidated and transferred more than a thousand federal opioid-related lawsuits that name the Company as a defendant to the multi-district litigation (“MDL”) pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio 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 as a defendant are also pending in state courts. On June 1, 2022, the JPML ordered that newly filed cases will no longer be transferred to the MDL. The plaintiffs in these opioid-related lawsuits generally allege claims that include, without limitation, public nuisance and negligence theories of liability resulting from 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 in which it remains a defendant or estimate a potential range of loss regarding the lawsuits, and is defending itself against all relevant claims. From time to time, some of these cases may be settled, dismissed or otherwise terminated, and additional such cases may be filed.

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.

As previously disclosed, on December 13, 2022, a qui tam complaint filed by three former Rite Aid pharmacy personnel (Andrew White, Mark Rosenberg, and Ann Wegelin) (collectively, “qui tam Relators”) was unsealed by the

federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in an order that also directed the United States Department of Justice to file within 90 days a complaint intervening or partially intervening in the Second Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”). On February 23, 2023, the following states, which were listed in the Complaint, declined to intervene: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia. On February 23, 2023, California stated its intention to make an intervention decision on or before May 2, 2023. On March 13, 2023, the United States Department of Justice filed its complaint in the federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Rite Aid (“DOJ’s Complaint”) alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act and Controlled Substances Act related to the dispensing of controlled substances, primarily opioids. DOJ’s Complaint seeks damages under the False Claims Act, civil penalties under the Controlled Substances Act, damages in connection with alleged payment by mistake (on behalf of Federal Healthcare Programs), and damages in connection with alleged unjust enrichment.

In April 2019, the Company initiated a coverage action styled Rite Aid Corporation et al. v. ACE American Ins. Co. et al. Through this action, the Company is seeking the recovery of defense costs and settlement and/or judgment costs that may be paid for the opioid-related lawsuits. The action seeks declaratory relief with respect to the obligations of the insurers under the policies at issue in the action and asserts claims for breach of contract and statutory remedies against one of these insurers. Although the trial court determined on the Company’s motion for partial summary judgment that this insurer was obligated to reimburse the Company for its defense costs, on January 10, 2022, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order and ruled that the insurer had no duty to defend the first MDL suits set for trial based on the specific allegations at issue in those cases. The matter has been remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.

Miscellaneous Litigation and Investigations.

Following the Company’s response to a 2020 CID from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) with respect to consumer protection laws, the Company is seeking to negotiate a resolution with the FTC. The allegations relate to certain business practices that the Company has not engaged in for nearly three years, and the Company currently believes that any resolution will not likely require a monetary payment. Discussions are ongoing with the FTC and the timing and substance of any settlement cannot be determined at this time. During the course of the Company’s discussions with the FTC in connection with its response to that CID, the FTC also requested certain information from the Company related to compliance with the Company’s 2010 FTC Consent Order. The Company cooperated with the FTC's request, however, the FTC Staff informed the Company that it would recommend that the FTC file a complaint against the Company for violation of the Consent Order, including a monetary payment and other relief, unless the Company informs FTC Staff that it is willing to discuss a resolution. The Company is evaluating the matter, including potential resolution, although no assurance can be given that the matter will be resolved to the parties’ mutual satisfaction, or that the resolution will not include a monetary payment, and that the payment will not be material. It is also possible that discussions relating to the 2010 FTC Consent Order could affect the resolution of the 2020 CID.

The Company has received CIDs from the Department of Justice related to the Medicare Part D plan sponsored by a subsidiary of the Company. The Company is also defending a lawsuit asserting numerous claims based on allegations surrounding the Company’s use of a certain font including in the Company’s rebranded logo. The Company is defending a putative class action it has removed to federal court in California regarding alleged privacy breaches.

The Company is defending a putative shareholder class action currently captioned Page v. Rite Aid Corporation et al., filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The matter names Rite Aid

Corporation and certain executives individually as defendants and raises claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to alleged misstatements and omissions concerning the growth of Elixir’s PBM services businesses. The matter remains in early stages, but the Company intends to aggressively defend against the allegations and challenge their merit. The Company is also defending a putative shareholder class action currently captioned Holland v. Rite Aid Corporation et al., filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The matter names Rite Aid Corporation and certain former and current executives individually as defendants and raises claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to the DOJ’s Complaint and alleged misstatements and omissions concerning the Company’s risk for regulatory action and litigation related to controlled substances practices. This matter is also in early stages, but the Company intends to aggressively defend against the allegations and challenge their merit.