Commitments and Contingencies | Note 9. Commitments and Contingencies The Company is involved in legal proceedings and is subject to investigations, inspections, audits, inquiries and similar actions by governmental authorities, arising in the normal course of the Company’s business, including the matters described below. Legal proceedings, in general, and securities and class action litigation, in particular, can be expensive and disruptive. Some of these suits may purport or may be determined to be class actions and/or involve parties seeking large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive or exemplary damages, and may remain unresolved for several years. From time to time, the Company is also involved in legal proceedings as a plaintiff involving antitrust, tax, contract, intellectual property and other matters. Gain contingencies, if any, are recognized when they are realized. The results of legal proceedings are often uncertain and difficult to predict, and the costs incurred in litigation can be substantial, regardless of the outcome. The Company believes that its defenses and assertions in pending legal proceedings have merit, and does not believe that any of these pending matters, after consideration of applicable reserves and rights to indemnification, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position. However, substantial unanticipated verdicts, fines and rulings do sometimes occur. As a result, the Company could from time to time incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise its expectations regarding the outcome of certain matters, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations in the period in which the amounts are accrued and/or its cash flows in the period in which the amounts are paid. On a quarterly basis, the Company assesses its liabilities and contingencies for outstanding legal proceedings and reserves are established on a case-by-case basis for those legal claims for which management concludes that it is probable that a loss will be incurred and that the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. Substantially all of these contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss can be complex. With respect to litigation and other legal proceedings where the Company has determined that a loss is reasonably possible, 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. The Company’s assessments are based on estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management, but that may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that might cause the Company to change those estimates and assumptions. Therefore, it is possible that an unfavorable resolution of one or more pending litigation or other contingencies could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements in a future fiscal period. Management’s assessment of current litigation and other legal proceedings, including the corresponding accruals, could change because of the discovery of facts with respect to legal actions or other proceedings pending against the Company which are not presently known. Adverse rulings or determinations by judges, juries, governmental authorities or other parties could also result in changes to management’s assessment of current liabilities and contingencies. Accordingly, the ultimate costs of resolving these claims may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts reserved. On December 5 and 12, 2014, putative shareholders filed class actions in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against the Walgreens Board of Directors, Walgreen Co., and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. arising out of the Company’s definitive proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the special meeting of Walgreens shareholders on December 29, 2014. The actions asserted claims that the definitive proxy statement/prospectus was false or misleading in various respects. On December 23, 2014, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Walgreens entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in both actions, pursuant to which Walgreens made certain supplemental disclosures. The proposed settlement was subject to, among other things, court approval. On July 8, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement, and on November 20, 2015, the Court entered an order of final approval of the settlement. On December 17, 2015, a purported class member who had objected to the settlement appealed the Court’s order. The appeal was docketed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Oral argument was held on June 2, 2016. On August 10, 2016, the Seventh Circuit issued an order reversing the district court’s judgment approving the settlement and remanding the case for further proceedings. On December 8, 2016, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the consolidated actions without prejudice. On December 29, 2014, a putative shareholder filed a derivative action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against certain current and former directors and officers of Walgreen Co., and Walgreen Co. as a nominal defendant, arising out of certain public statements the Company made regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. The action asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste and unjust enrichment. On April 10, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On May 18, 2015, the case was stayed in light of the securities class action that was filed on April 10, 2015, which is described below. On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co. The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. On June 16, 2015, the Court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff. Pursuant to the Court’s order, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 16, 2015. Lead plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss on December 22, 2015, and defendants filed a reply in support of the motion on February 5, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Walgreen Co.’s motion to dismiss. Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint on November 4, 2016. As of November 30, 2016, the Company was aware of ten putative class action lawsuits (the “Rite Aid actions”) filed by purported Rite Aid stockholders against Rite Aid and its board of directors, Walgreens Boots Alliance and for claims arising out of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement (the “Rite Aid Transactions”). Eight of the Rite Aid actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Delaware actions”), one Rite Aid action was filed in the State of Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (the “Pennsylvania action”), and one Rite Aid action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the “federal action”). The Delaware actions and the Pennsylvania action primarily alleged that the Rite Aid board of directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the Rite Aid Transactions by, among other things, agreeing to an unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal protection devices that preclude other bidders from making successful competing offers for Rite Aid, and failing to disclose all allegedly material information concerning the proposed merger; and also allege that Walgreens Boots Alliance and aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The federal action alleges, among other things, that Rite Aid and its board of directors disseminated an allegedly false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the Rite Aid Transactions. The Delaware actions were consolidated, and plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Rite Aid shareholder vote on the Rite Aid Transactions. The plaintiffs in the federal action also filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the same Rite Aid shareholder vote. All such motions were denied, and the Rite Aid shareholders approved the Rite Aid Transactions at a special meeting on February 4, 2016. On April 15, 2016, the plaintiffs in the Delaware actions agreed to a settlement in principle related to this matter for an immaterial amount. In the federal action, plaintiffs agreed to stay the litigation until after the Rite Aid Transactions have closed. |