Reference no: EM13953235

Walmart's Contingent Liabilities

The following excerpts are from the footnotes that accompany Walmart's financial statements of January 31, 2012.

Wage-and-Hour Class Action: The Company is a defendant in Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a class action lawsuit commenced in March 2002 in the Court of Common Pleas 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, a jury awarded back-pay damages to the plaintiffs of approximately $78 mil- lion 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. By operation of law, post-judgment interest accrues on the judgment amount at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of entry of the judgment, which was November 14, 2007, until the judgment is paid, unless the judgment is set aside on appeal. On December 7, 2007, the Company filed its Notice of Appeal. The Company filed its opening appellate brief on February 17, 2009, plaintiffs filed their response brief on April 20, 2009, and the Company filed its reply brief on June 5, 2009. Oral argument was held before the Superior Court of Appeals on August 19, 2009. On June 10, 2011, the Superior Court of Appeals issued an opinion upholding the trial court's certi- fication of the class, the jury's back pay award, and the awards of statutory penalties and prejudg- ment interest, but reversing the award of attorneys' fees and remanding it back to the trial court for a downward adjustment. On July 10, 2011, the Company filed an Application for Rehearing En Banc with regard to the portions of the opinion that held in favor of the plaintiffs, which was denied on August 11, 2011. On September 9, 2011, the Company filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The plaintiffs filed a response on September 23, 2011, and the Company filed a reply brief on September 30, 2011. The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to the claims at issue, and plans to continue pursuing appellate review.

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 U.S. Attorney's Office in the Northern District of California and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency subsequently joined in this investigation. The Company contends that the practice of transporting returned merchandise to its return centers for subsequent disposition, including disposal by certified facili- ties, is compliant with applicable laws and regulations. While management cannot predict the ulti- mate 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.

Source: Walmart, Inc., Form 10-K, For the Fiscal Year Ended January 31, 2012.

Required

1. Regarding the first paragraph of the contingency note, at what point should an accrual of a contingent liability occur? What is the effect on the financial statements of an accrual?

2. Regarding the second paragraph, is disclosure of an environmental issue in the notes that accom- pany the financial statements all that is required by the company, or is accrual required?