beatandraise : SEC Filings Research with AI

beatandraise.com

2.0.0.10 false Legal Proceedings 120 - Disclosure - Legal Proceedings true false false false 1 usd $ false false iso4217_USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 iso4217_USD_per_shares Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares 0 shares Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares 0 5 Legal Proceedings 3 wmt_LegalProceedingsTextBlock wmt false na duration string Open legal proceedings in the normal course of business, including product liability and other litigation and contingencies. false false false false false false false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 <div> Note 11. Legal Proceedings The company is involved in a number of legal proceedings. The company has made accruals with respect to these matters, where appropriate, which are reflected in the company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. For some matters, the amount of liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated and therefore accruals have not been made. However, where a liability is reasonably possible and material, such matters have been disclosed. The company may enter into discussions regarding settlement of these matters, and may enter into settlement agreements, if it believes settlement is in the best interest of the company’s shareholders. The matters, or groups of related matters, discussed below, if decided adversely to or settled by the company, individually or in the aggregate, may result in liability material to the company’s financial condition or results of operations. Wage-and-Hour Class Actions: The company is a defendant in various cases containing class-action allegations in which the plaintiffs are current and former hourly associates who allege that the company committed wage-and-hour violations by failing to provide rest breaks, meal periods, or other benefits, or otherwise by failing to pay them correctly. The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both. The company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from these lawsuits, except where the lawsuit has been settled or otherwise as noted below. In one of the wage-and-hour lawsuits, Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a trial was commenced in September 2006, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege that the company failed to pay class members for all hours worked and prevented class members from taking their full meal and rest breaks. On October 13, 2006, the jury awarded back-pay damages to the plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for off-the-clock work and missed rest breaks. The jury found in favor of the company on the plaintiffs’ meal-period claims. On November 14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in the approximate amount of $188 million, which included the jury’s back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees. The company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to the claims at issue, and on December 7, 2007, the company filed its Notice of Appeal. Exempt Status Cases: The company is a defendant in several cases in which the plaintiffs seek class or collective certification of various groups of salaried managers, and challenge their exempt status under state and federal laws. In one of those cases (Sepulveda v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.), class certification was denied by the trial court on May 5, 2006. On April 25, 2008, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling in part and reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. On May 16, 2008, the company filed a petition seeking review of that ruling by a larger panel of the court. On October 10, 2008, the court entered an Order staying all proceedings in the Sepulveda appeal pending the final disposition of the appeal in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., discussed below. Class certification has not been addressed in the other cases. The company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from these lawsuits. Gender Discrimination Cases: The company is a defendant in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a class-action lawsuit commenced in June 2001 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case was brought on behalf of all past and present female employees in all of the company’s retail stores and warehouse clubs in the United States. The complaint alleges that the company has engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay, training and job assignments. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The class, which was certified by the district court for purposes of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages and lost pay, subject to certain exceptions, includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store at any time since December 26, 1998, who have been or may be subjected to the pay and management track promotions policies and practices challenged by the plaintiffs. The company believes that the district court’s ruling is incorrect. On August 31, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the company’s petition for discretionary review of the ruling. On February 6, 2007, a divided three-judge panel of the court of appeals issued a decision affirming the district court’s certification order. On February 20, 2007, the company filed a petition asking that the decision be reconsidered by a larger panel of the court. On December 11, 2007, the three-judge panel withdrew its opinion of February 6, 2007, and issued a revised opinion. As a result, the company’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc was denied as moot. The company filed a new Petition for Rehearing En Banc on January 8, 2008. On February 13, 2009, the court of appeals issued an Order granting the Petition. The court heard oral argument on the Petition on March 24, 2009. If the company is not successful in its appeal of class certification, or an appellate court issues a ruling that allows for the certification of a class or classes with a different size or scope, and if there is a subsequent adverse verdict on the merits from which there is no successful appeal, or in the event of a negotiated settlement of the litigation, the resulting liability could be material to the company’s financial condition or results of operations. The plaintiffs also seek punitive damages which, if awarded, could result in the payment of additional amounts material to the company’s financial condition or results of operations. However, because of the uncertainty of the outcome of the appeal from the district court’s certification decision, because of the uncertainty of the balance of the proceedings contemplated by the district court, and because the company’s liability, if any, arising from the litigation, including the size of any damages award if plaintiffs are successful in the litigation or any negotiated settlement, could vary widely, the company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from the litigation. Since August 2001, the company has been a defendant in a lawsuit that was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on August 24, 2001, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on behalf of Janice Smith and all other females who made application or transfer requests at the London, Kentucky, distribution center from 1998 to the present, and who were not hired or transferred into the warehouse positions for which they applied. On February 26, 2010, the company and the EEOC entered into an agreement to settle the case for $12 million plus related taxes and expenses, and on March 1, 2010, the court entered an agreed Consent Decree memorializing the settlement. Hazardous Materials Investigations: On November 8, 2005, the company received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, seeking documents and information relating to the company’s receipt, transportation, handling, identification, recycling, treatment, storage and disposal of certain merchandise that constitutes hazardous materials or hazardous waste. The company has been informed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California that it is a target of a criminal investigation into potential violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), the Clean Water Act and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Statute. This U.S. Attorney’s Office contends, among other things, that the use of company trucks to transport certain returned merchandise from the company’s stores to its return centers is prohibited by RCRA because those materials may be considered hazardous waste. The government alleges that, to comply with RCRA, the company must ship from the store certain materials as “hazardous waste” directly to a certified disposal facility using a certified hazardous waste carrier. The company contends that the practice of transporting returned merchandise to its return centers for subsequent disposition, including disposal by certified facilities, is compliant with applicable laws and regulations. While management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, management does not believe the outcome will have a material effect on the company’s financial condition or results of operations. Additionally, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of California has initiated its own investigation regarding the company’s handling of hazardous materials and hazardous waste and the company has received administrative document requests from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control requesting documents and information with respect to two of the company’s distribution facilities. Further, the company also received a subpoena from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office for documents and administrative interrogatories requesting information, among other things, regarding the company’s handling of materials and hazardous waste. California state and local government authorities also initiated investigations into these matters. The company is cooperating fully with the respective authorities. While management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, management does not believe the outcome will have a material effect on the company’s financial condition or results of operations. </div> Note 11. Legal Proceedings The company is involved in a number of legal proceedings. The company has made accruals with respect to these matters, where false false false Open legal proceedings in the normal course of business, including product liability and other litigation and contingencies. No authoritative reference available. false false 1 1 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true