17. 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), 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. 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. 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 regarding 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 exceed reimbursement pursuant to any applicable insurance.

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; (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, and/or (viii) changes in priorities following any change in political administration at the state or federal level.

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 representative actions under the California Private Attorneys General Act and seek substantial damages and penalties. These single-plaintiff and multi-plaintiff California Cases in the aggregate, seek substantial damages. In June 2021, the Company agreed to settle two of the California Cases in which the plaintiffs brought class-based claims alleging that they and all other similarly-situated associates were not paid for time waiting for their bags to be checked. One set of cases involving store associates was settled for $9 million, while the other involving distribution center associates was settled for $1.75 million. On October 1, 2021, the Company agreed to settle for $12 million allegations made by a purported class of California store associates that it required such associates to purchase uniforms. These settlements remain subject to court approval. In August 2021, the Company paid approximately $8 million in connection with a single-plaintiff matter after exhausting appeals. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses in the California Cases. The Company has aggressively defended itself and challenged the merits of the 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.

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 its Rx Savings Program prices as its usual and customary prices 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 appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On June 29, 2021, the Sixth Circuit upheld the lower court's granting of the Company's motion to dismiss the federal FCA claims, leaving Relator the option of refiling the remaining state court 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. The matter has settled for an amount that is not material.

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 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 offers to uninsured and underinsured customers through its Rx Savings Program. Although a stay pending the Company’s unsuccessful attempt to compel arbitration has been lifted, the cases are now stayed pending mediation of these matters and another lawsuit raising usual and customary pricing allegations filed in the United States District Court for Pennsylvania.

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 prices as its usual and customary prices to Humana. An arbitration hearing was held in this matter in November 2021. 

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 by failing to report its Rx Savings Program pricing to several Pharmacy Benefit Managers 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 that did not include Rx Savings Program pricing.   

Drug Utilization Review and Code 1 Litigation

In June 2012, qui tam plaintiff, Lloyd 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 filed a complaint in intervention. The Company filed a motion to dismiss Relator’s and the State of California Department of Justice’s Bureau of Medical Fraud and Elder Abuse respective complaints in January 2018, the hearing was held on March 23, 2018. On September 5, 2018, the court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss. No trial date has been set but the parties have agreed in principle to participate in a mediation process.

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 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. The plaintiffs in these opioid-related lawsuits generally allege claims that include 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 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.

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 future settlement and/or judgment costs for the opioid-related lawsuits. The action seeks declaratory relief with respect to the obligations of the insurers under all of the policies at issue in the action and asserts claims for breach of contract and statutory remedies against an insurer. While the Company prevailed on a partial summary judgment motion that this insurer has a past and continuing duty to reimburse defense costs for the suits in excess of a satisfied $3,000 retention, that insurer has appealed the ruling and has refused to reimburse the Company for any of its defense costs. The briefing on the insurer’s appeal has been submitted. The Delaware Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the matter on September 22, 2021.

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 July 2021, Elixir participated in a binding

arbitration regarding a dispute with its reinsurer for years 2012 through 2014. The arbitration panel issued a majority opinion awarding Elixir approximately $5 million for years 2012 through 2013, and ordering Elixir to pay the reinsurer approximately $15.4 million in damages for breach for year 2014. The Company acquired Elixir in June 2015. The Company has received a CID and requests for information with respect to consumer protection laws.