COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES AND OFF BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS	4 Months Ended
	Jun. 15, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES AND OFF BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES AND OFF BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS Guarantees Lease Guarantees: The Company may have liability under certain operating leases that were assigned to third parties. If any of these third parties fail to perform their obligations under the leases, the Company could be responsible for the lease obligation. Because of the wide dispersion among third parties and the variety of remedies available, the Company believes that if an assignee became insolvent, it would not have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company also provides guarantees, indemnifications and assurances to others in the ordinary course of its business. Legal Proceedings The Company is subject from time to time to various claims and lawsuits, including matters involving trade, business and operational practices, personnel and employment issues, lawsuits alleging violations of state and/or federal wage and hour laws, real estate disputes, personal injury, antitrust claims, packaging or product claims, claims related to the sale of drug or pharmacy products, such as opioids, intellectual property claims and other proceedings arising in or outside of the ordinary course of business. Some of these claims or suits purport or may be determined to be class actions and/or seek substantial damages. It is the opinion of the Company's management that although the amount of liability with respect to certain of the matters described herein cannot be ascertained at this time, any resulting liability of these and other matters, including any punitive damages, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business or overall financial condition. The Company continually evaluates its exposure to loss contingencies arising from pending or threatened litigation and believes it has made provisions where the loss contingency is probable and can be reasonably estimated. Nonetheless, assessing and predicting the outcomes of these matters involves substantial uncertainties. While management currently believes that the aggregate estimated liabilities currently recorded are reasonable, it remains possible that differences in actual outcomes or changes in management's evaluation or predictions could arise that could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows. False Claims Act: Two qui tam actions alleging violations of the False Claims Act ("FCA") have been filed against the Company and its subsidiaries. Violations of the FCA are subject to treble damages and penalties of up to a specified dollar amount per false claim. In United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, the relator alleges that Safeway overcharged federal government healthcare programs by not providing the federal government, as part of its usual and customary prices, the benefit of discounts given to customers in pharmacy membership discount and price-matching programs. The relator filed his complaint under seal on November 11, 2011, and the complaint was unsealed on August 26, 2015. The relator amended the complaint on March 31, 2016. On June 12, 2020, the District Court granted Safeway's motion for summary judgment, holding that the relator could not prove that Safeway acted with the intent required under the FCA, and judgment was issued on June 15, 2020. On July 10, 2020, the relator filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and to supplement the record, which Safeway opposed. On November 13, 2020, the District Court denied relator's motion, and on December 11, 2020, relator filed a notice of appeal. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in the Company's favor on April 5, 2022. On August 3, 2022, relators filed a petition seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court. In United States ex rel. Schutte and Yarberry v. SuperValu, New Albertson's, Inc., et al., also filed in the Central District of Illinois, the relators allege that defendants (including various subsidiaries of the Company) overcharged federal government healthcare programs by not providing the federal government, as a part of usual and customary prices, the benefit of discounts given to customers who requested that defendants match competitor prices. The complaint was originally filed under seal and amended on November 30, 2015. On August 5, 2019, the District Court granted relators' motion for partial summary judgment, holding that price-matched prices are the usual and customary prices for those drugs. On July 1, 2020, the District Court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the case, holding that the relator could not prove that defendants acted with the intent required under the FCA. Judgment was issued on July 2, 2020. On July 9, 2020, the relators filed a notice of appeal. On August 12, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in the Company's favor. On September 23, 2021, the relators filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the Seventh Circuit. On December 3, 2021, the Seventh Circuit denied relators' petition. On April 1, 2022, relators filed a petition seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the appeals filed by the relators in Proctor and Schutte. The Supreme Court consolidated the two cases for the purpose of hearing the appeal. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 18, 2023. On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court issued an opinion adverse to the Company that reversed the lower court's rulings. On July 3, 2023, the Supreme Court issued the order remanding both cases back to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for further review. On July 27, 2023, the Court of Appeals remanded both cases back to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. On August 22, 2023, the District Court - as to Schutte - set a pretrial conference for March 4, 2024, and a trial date of April 29, 2024. At the same July 27 hearing, the District Court also gave the defendants leave to file motions for summary judgment on a schedule to be agreed upon. On October 11, 2023, the Company and co-defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On the same day, the relators filed motions for partial summary judgment. Both sides' motions are pending. On February 16, 2024, the Company and co-defendant filed a motion to reconsider a prior grant of partial summary judgment against the defendants, and also a motion to continue the trial. On February 27, 2024, the District Court granted the motion to continue and vacated the April 29, 2024 trial date. At a pretrial conference on March 4, 2024, the District Court reset the trial for September 30, 2024. On May 20, 2024, the District Court heard oral argument on the pending motions. On May 22, 2024, the Company and co-defendant filed a motion to continue the trial to January 2025, but in any event no earlier than November 2024. The District Court has not set any trial date for Proctor as of yet, and no motions are pending in that case. In both of the above cases, the federal government previously investigated the relators' allegations and declined to intervene. The relators elected to pursue their respective cases on their own and in each case have alleged FCA damages in excess of $100 million before trebling and excluding penalties. The Company is vigorously defending each of these matters. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for these matters. Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) Litigation: The Company (including its subsidiary, Safeway Inc.) is a defendant in a lawsuit filed on January 21, 2021, in Minnesota state court, captioned Health Care Service Corp. et al. v. Albertsons Companies, LLC, et al. The action challenges certain prescription-drug prices reported by the Company to a pharmacy benefit manager, Prime Therapeutics LLC ("Prime"), which in turn contracted with the health-insurer plaintiffs to adjudicate and process prescription-drug reimbursement claims. On December 7, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On January 14, 2022, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss as to all but one count, plaintiffs' claim of negligent misrepresentation. On January 21, 2022, the Company and co-defendant SUPERVALU, Inc. ("SUPERVALU") filed a third-party complaint against Prime, asserting various claims, including: indemnification, fraud and unjust enrichment. On February 17, 2022, the Company filed in the Minnesota Court of Appeals an interlocutory appeal of the denial of their motion to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds (the "Jurisdictional Appeal"). On February 24, 2022, the Company and SUPERVALU filed in the trial court an unopposed motion to stay proceedings, pending the resolution of the Jurisdictional Appeal. The parties agreed on March 6, 2022, to an interim stay in the trial court pending a ruling on the unopposed motion to stay proceedings. On September 6, 2022, the Minnesota Court of Appeals denied the Jurisdictional Appeal and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the Company’s motion to dismiss. On October 6, 2022, the Company and SUPERVALU filed a petition seeking review by the Minnesota Supreme Court. On November 23, 2022, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied that petition. The Company and co-defendant SUPERVALU filed an answer to the complaint on January 23, 2023. On March 9, 2023, Prime moved to dismiss the third-party complaint filed by the Company and SUPERVALU. The court heard oral arguments on the motion on May 11, 2023. On August 9, 2023, the court denied Prime's motion as to 16 of the 17 counts in the third-party complaint, and dismissed one count without prejudice. On September 18, 2023, the Company and SUPERVALU filed an amended third-party complaint, which repleaded the one count that had been dismissed (in addition to the other claims asserted in the initial third-party complaint). On October 2, 2023, Prime filed an answer to the amended third-party complaint. The parties are presently engaged in discovery. The case is currently scheduled to be ready for trial on or after September 29, 2025. The Company is vigorously defending the claims filed against it, and the Company also intends to prosecute its claims against Prime with equal vigor. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for this matter. Opioid Litigation: The Company is one of dozens of companies that have been named as defendants in lawsuits filed by various plaintiffs, including states, counties, cities, Native American tribes, and hospitals, alleging that defendants contributed to the national opioid epidemic. At present, the Company is named in approximately 85 suits pending in various state courts as well as in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, where over 2,000 cases against various defendants have been consolidated as Multi-District Litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. Most of the cases naming the Company have been stayed pending multiple bellwether trials, including three involving the Company in Tarrant County (Texas), Town of Hull (Massachusetts) and Monterey County (California). All three bellwether matters are currently in discovery. The relief sought by the various plaintiffs in these matters includes compensatory damages, abatement and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief. Prior to the start of a state-court trial that was scheduled for September 6, 2022, the Company reached an agreement to settle with the State of New Mexico. The New Mexico counties and municipal entities that filed 14 additional lawsuits, including Santa Fe County, agreed to the terms of the settlement. Thus, all 15 cases filed by New Mexico entities have been dismissed as a result of the settlement. The Company executed an agreement to settle three matters pending in Nevada state court. The Company recorded a liability of $21.5 million for the settlements of the cases in New Mexico and Nevada which was paid by our insurers in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2022. With respect to the remaining pending state court claims, which may not be covered by insurance, three claims are currently proceeding through discovery, with trial dates scheduled in 2025. Those matters are pending in Dallas County (Texas), the State of Washington and the City of Philadelphia (Pennsylvania). The Company believes that it has substantial factual and legal defenses to these claims, and is vigorously defending these matters. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company is unable to determine the probability of the outcome of these remaining matters or the range of reasonably possible loss. The Company has also received, subpoenas, Civil Investigative Demands and other requests for documents and information from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and certain state Attorneys General, and has had preliminary discussions with the DOJ with respect to purported violations of the federal Controlled Substances Act and the FCA in dispensing prescriptions. The Company has been cooperating with the government with respect to these requests for information. Other Commitments In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into various supply contracts to purchase products for resale and purchase and service contracts for fixed asset and information technology commitments. These contracts typically include volume commitments or fixed expiration dates, termination provisions and other standard contractual considerations.