Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2019

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 Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. For some matters, a liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated and therefore an accrual has not been made. However, where a liability is reasonably possible and may be 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 and its shareholders.

Unless stated otherwise, the matters discussed below, if decided adversely to or settled by the Company, individually or in the aggregate, may result in a liability material to the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

ASDA Equal Value Claims

ASDA Stores Ltd. ("Asda"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, is a defendant in over 30,000 equal value ("Equal Value") claims that began in 2008 and are proceeding before an Employment Tribunal in Manchester (the "Employment Tribunal") in the United Kingdom ("UK") on behalf of current and former Asda store employees, and further claims may be asserted in the future. The claimants allege that the work performed by female employees in Asda's retail stores is of equal value in terms of, among other things, the demands of their jobs compared to that of male employees working in Asda's warehouse and distribution facilities, and that the disparity in pay between these different job positions is not objectively justified. As a result, claimants are requesting differential back pay based on higher wage rates in the warehouse and distribution facilities and higher wage rates on a prospective basis.

In March 2015, Asda asked the Employment Tribunal to stay all proceedings and to "strike out" substantially all of the claims because the claimants had not adhered to the Tribunal's procedural rule for including multiple claimants on the same claim form. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals declined to strike out any claims relying on the Employment Tribunal’s finding that claimants had not deliberately disregarded the Tribunal’s procedural rule.

As to the initial phase of the Equal Value claims, in October 2016 following a preliminary hearing, the Employment Tribunal ruled that claimants could compare their positions in Asda's retail stores with those of employees in Asda's warehouse and distribution facilities. In August 2017, the Employment Appeal Tribunal affirmed the Employment Tribunal's ruling and also granted permission for Asda to appeal substantially all of its findings. Asda sought permission to appeal the remainder of the Employment Appeal Tribunal's findings to the Court of Appeals and a hearing before the Court of Appeals on the comparability findings was held in October 2018. The Court of Appeals upheld the Employment Tribunal’s findings. The Supreme Court granted Asda's application to appeal the Court of Appeals decision on July 31, 2019.

Claimants are proceeding in the next phase of their claims. That phase will determine whether the work performed by the claimants is of equal value to the work performed by employees in Asda's warehouse and distribution facilities.

At present, the Company cannot predict the number of such claims that may be filed, and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from these proceedings. The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to these claims, and intends to defend the claims vigorously.

National Prescription Opiate Litigation and Related Matters

In December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous lawsuits filed against a wide array of defendants by various plaintiffs, including counties, cities, healthcare providers, Native American tribes, individuals, and third-party payors, asserting claims generally concerning the impacts of widespread opioid abuse. The consolidated multidistrict litigation is entitled In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The Company is named as a defendant in some of the cases included in this multidistrict litigation. Similar cases that name the Company have also been filed in state courts by state, local and tribal governments, health care providers and other plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief including abatement. The Company cannot predict the number of such claims that may be filed, but believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to these claims, and intends to defend the claims vigorously. The Company has also been responding to subpoenas, information requests and investigations from governmental entities related to nationwide controlled substance dispensing and distribution practices involving opioids. The Company cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from these matters. Accordingly, the Company can provide no assurance as to the scope and outcome of these matters and no assurance as to whether its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows will not be materially adversely affected.

FCPA Investigation and Related Matters

As previously disclosed, the Company was under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (the "DOJ") and the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") regarding possible violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the "FCPA"). Throughout the investigative process, the Company cooperated with the DOJ and the SEC, and on June 20, 2019, the Company announced the resolution of the investigations with the DOJ and the SEC and paid $283 million in June 2019 consisting of a combination of penalties, disgorgement and interest as further described below (the "Settlement Amount"). The Company previously recorded the Settlement Amount in the Company's fiscal 2018 consolidated financial statements in anticipated settlement of these matters.

The resolution of the investigations with the DOJ and SEC included:

A non-prosecution agreement (the "NPA") between the DOJ and the Company for a three-year term. Pursuant to the NPA, the Company paid a $138 million penalty and agreed to maintain the Company's anti-corruption compliance program for three years, certain reporting obligations for three years, and a limited monitorship with a third party for two years regarding the Company's anti-corruption compliance program, with the possibility of a third year pending the results of the monitorship during the initial two-year period. The DOJ agreed that it will not prosecute the Company for any conduct described in the NPA provided that the Company performs its obligations under the NPA for the three-year term.

A plea agreement (the "Plea Agreement") entered into for a three-year term by the DOJ and WMT Brasilia S.a.r.l., an indirect wholly-owned foreign subsidiary of the Company ("WMT Brasilia") that previously owned a majority stake of the Company's Brazilian business. Through the Plea Agreement, entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, WMT Brasilia pled guilty to one count of causing a books and records violation of the FCPA. The Company on behalf of WMT Brasilia was assessed a $4 million penalty, including forfeiture, that was deducted from the amount paid by the Company under the NPA.

A Cease-and-Desist Order entered into by the SEC in a civil administrative proceeding (the "SEC Order"), the entry of which the Company consented to with respect to certain violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. The Company paid $145 million in disgorgement and interest, and agreed to make certain reports to the SEC on its anti-corruption compliance and remediation efforts for two years, and cease and desist any violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA.

On June 20, 2019, the Company also entered into an Administrative Agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") for a three-year term, which replaces the interim administrative agreement between the Company and the EPA dated May 28, 2013. The May 28, 2013 agreement arose as part of a settlement by the Company regarding certain hazardous waste materials matters with several governmental authorities. The new EPA agreement, among other things, resolved any debarment or suspension as to participation in federal government programs by the Company due to the NPA, the Plea Agreement, and the SEC Order, provided that the Company fulfills the terms and conditions of the new EPA agreement, which requires reporting by the Company to the EPA periodically during the three-year term, and requires a new, limited two-year monitorship. The monitor referenced above that has been engaged by the Company under the NPA will also monitor compliance with the new EPA agreement. If the DOJ monitorship is extended as referenced above, the EPA monitorship may also be extended for an additional year.

In addition, the Company expects to incur costs in implementing the settlement and may incur costs in responding to any new civil or regulatory actions. The Company does not presently believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.