This excerpt taken from the KR DEF 14A filed May 15, 2009.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, CONTINUED
Litigation On October 6, 2006, the Company petitioned the Tax Court (In Re: Ralphs Grocery Company and Subsidiaries, formerly known as Ralphs Supermarkets, Inc., Docket No. 20364-06) for a redetermination of deficiencies set by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The dispute at issue involves a 1992 transaction in which Ralphs Holding Company acquired the stock of Ralphs Grocery Company and made an election under Section 338(h)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Commissioner has determined that the acquisition of the stock was not a purchase as defined by Section 338(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and that the acquisition does not qualify as a purchase. The Company believes that it has strong arguments in favor of its position and believes it is more likely than not that its position will be sustained. However, due to the inherent uncertainty involved in the litigation process, there can be no assurances that the Tax Court will rule in favor of the Company. As of January 31, 2009, an adverse decision would require a cash payment up to approximately $436, including interest.
On February 2, 2004, the Attorney General for the State of California filed an action in Los Angeles federal court (California, ex rel Lockyer v. Safeway, Inc. dba Vons, a Safeway Company; Albertsons, Inc. and Ralphs Grocery Company, a division of The Kroger Co., United States District Court Central District of California, Case No. CV04-0687) alleging that the Mutual Strike Assistance Agreement (the Agreement) between the Company, Albertsons, Inc. and Safeway Inc. (collectively, the Retailers), which was designed to prevent the union from placing disproportionate pressure on one or more of the Retailers by picketing such Retailer(s) but not the other Retailer(s) during the labor dispute in southern California, violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The lawsuit seeks declarative and injunctive relief. On May 28, 2008, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the court entered a final judgment in favor of the defendants. As a result of the stipulation and final judgment, there are no further claims to be litigated at the trial court level. The Attorney General has appealed a trial court ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the defendants are appealing a separate ruling. Although this lawsuit is subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, based on the information presently available to the Company, management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of this action will have a material adverse effect on the Companys financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Various claims and lawsuits arising in the normal course of business, including suits charging violations of certain antitrust, wage and hour, or civil rights laws, are pending against the Company. Some of these suits purport or have been determined to be class actions and/or seek substantial damages. Any damages that may be awarded in antitrust cases will be automatically trebled. Although it is not possible at this time to evaluate the merits of all of these claims and lawsuits, nor their likelihood of success, the Company is of the belief that any resulting liability will not have a material adverse effect on the Companys financial position.
The Company continually evaluates its exposure to loss contingencies arising from pending or threatened litigation and believes it has made adequate provisions therefor. Nonetheless, assessing and predicting the outcomes of these matters involve substantial uncertainties. It remains possible that despite managements current belief, material differences in actual outcomes or changes in managements evaluation or predictions could arise that could have a material adverse effect on the Companys financial condition or results of operation.
Guarantees The Company has guaranteed half of the indebtedness of two real estate entities in which Kroger has a 50% ownership interest. The Companys share of the responsibility for this indebtedness, should the entities be unable to meet their obligations, totals approximately $7. Based on the covenants underlying this indebtedness as of January 31, 2009 it is unlikely that the Company will be responsible for repayment of these obligations. The Company also agreed to guarantee, up to $25, the indebtedness
This excerpt taken from the KR DEF 14A filed May 15, 2008.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, CONTINUED
the methodology prescribed under SFAS No. 123, the net earnings and diluted earnings per common share would have been reduced to the pro forma amounts below:
The total intrinsic value of options exercised was $33 and $79 in 2007 and 2006, respectively. The total amount of cash received from the exercise of options granted under share-based payment arrangements was $188. As of February 2, 2008, there was $110 of total unrecognized compensation expense related to non-vested share-based compensation arrangements granted under the Company's equity award plans. This cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of approximately one year. The total fair value of options that vested was $53 and $44 in 2007 and 2006, respectively.
Shares issued as a result of stock option exercises may be newly issued shares or reissued treasury shares. Proceeds received from the exercise of options, and the related tax benefit, are utilized to repurchase shares of the Company's stock under a stock repurchase program adopted by the Company's Board of Directors. During 2007, the Company repurchased approximately 10 million shares of stock in such a manner.
For share-based awards granted prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R), the Company's stock option grants generally contained retirement-eligibility provisions that caused the options to vest upon the earlier of the stated vesting date or retirement. Compensation expense was calculated over the stated vesting periods, regardless of whether certain employees became retirement-eligible during the respective vesting periods. Upon the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R), the Company continued this method of recognizing compensation expense for awards granted prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R). For awards granted on or after January 29, 2006, options vest based on the stated vesting date, even if an employee retires prior to the vesting date. The requisite service period ends, however, on the employee's retirement-eligible date. As a result, the Company recognizes expense for stock option grants containing such retirement-eligibility provisions over the shorter of the vesting period or the period until employees become retirement-eligible (the requisite service period). As a result of retirement eligibility provisions in stock option awards granted on or after January 29, 2006, approximately $13 of compensation expense was recognized in 2007 prior to the completion of stated vesting periods.