18. Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees
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.
Since December 2008, the Company has been named in a series of fifteen (15) currently pending putative collective and class action lawsuits filed in federal and state courts around the country, purportedly on behalf of current and former assistant store managers and co-managers working in the Company's stores at various locations outside California, including Craig et al v. Rite Aid Corporation et al pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "Court") and Ibea et al v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuits allege that the Company failed to pay overtime to salaried assistant store managers and co-managers as purportedly required under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and certain state statutes. The lawsuits also seek other relief, including liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of the state and federal claims for overtime pay. The Company aggressively challenged both the merits of the lawsuits and the allegation that the cases should be certified as class or collective actions. However, in light of the cost and uncertainty involved in these lawsuits, in May 2012, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Plaintiffs' counsel to resolve the series of lawsuits. The parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the Court which was granted on June 18, 2012. A final resolution of these matters was subject to final Court approval. The Court held a final approval hearing on December 4, 2012 and issued an Order approving the settlement on January 7, 2013. The Order was not appealed and is final. Settlement funds to those who chose to participate in the settlement were disbursed on March 13, 2013 concluding the matter.
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. The parties have fully briefed the issues of Rule 23 class certification of the New York store manager claims and decertification of the nationwide collective action claims and are awaiting a ruling from the Court. 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 not appropriate for collective or class action treatment 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 and failure to provide employee seating. These suits purport to be class actions and seek substantial damages. At this time, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuits. The Company's management believes, however, that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and that their claims are not appropriate for class action treatment. The Company is vigorously defending all of these claims.
The Company was served with a United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General ("OIG") subpoena dated March 5, 2010 in connection with an investigation being conducted by the OIG and the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California. The subpoena requests records related to any gift card inducement programs for customers who transferred prescriptions for drugs or medicines to the Company's pharmacies, and whether any customers who receive federally funded prescription benefits (e.g. Medicare and Medicaid) may have benefited from those programs. The Company has substantially completed its production of records in response to the subpoena and is unable to predict the timing or outcome of any review by the government of such information.
The Company received a subpoena dated May 9, 2011 from certain California counties seeking information regarding compliance with environmental regulations governing the management of hazardous waste. The Company has responded to the subpoena, is cooperating with California regulators, and continues to review its operations pertaining to the management of hazardous materials. The Company is in discussions with the California regulators and has recorded an estimated amount to settle these matters.
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 Rite Aid's Rx Savings Program and 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. The Company is completing its response to both of the subpoenas 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 our 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 in a particular fiscal period 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 has appealed the preliminary injunctions to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which Court vacated the injunctions. The numerous medical providers are considering their options. Based upon the actions of DHCS, the Company has recorded an appropriate accrual. As pertinent facts and circumstances develop, this accrual may be adjusted.