Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2011
Legal Proceedings
Legal Proceedings	Note 10. 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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 certification of the class, the jury's back pay award, and the awards of statutory penalties and prejudgment 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. The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to the claims at issue, and plans to continue pursuing appellate review. Gender Discrimination Class Action: The Company is a defendant in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which was commenced as a class-action lawsuit in June 2001 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting that the Company had engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay, training and job assignments, and seeking, 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. As defined by the district court, the class included 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 Wal-Mart's challenged pay and management track promotions policies and practices. 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. On April 26, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued a divided (6-5) opinion affirming certain portions of the district court's ruling and reversing other portions. On August 25, 2010, the Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit's decision. On December 6, 2010, the Supreme Court granted the Company's petition for writ of certiorari. On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing the Ninth Circuit and decertifying the class. On June 24, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Extend Tolling of the Statute of Limitations, indicating that they intend to pursue both individual claims and "a more narrowly defined class that would comply with the certification standards set forth by the Supreme Court." On August 19, 2011, the district judge entered an Order granting the motion in part and specifying dates by which any additional claims must be filed. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from this litigation. 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 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 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.

Note 10. 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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 certification of the class, the jury's back pay award, and the awards of statutory penalties and prejudgment 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. The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to the claims at issue, and plans to continue pursuing appellate review.

Gender Discrimination Class Action: The Company is a defendant in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which was commenced as a class-action lawsuit in June 2001 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting that the Company had engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay, training and job assignments, and seeking, 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. As defined by the district court, the class included 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 Wal-Mart's challenged pay and management track promotions policies and practices.

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. On April 26, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued a divided (6-5) opinion affirming certain portions of the district court's ruling and reversing other portions. On August 25, 2010, the Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit's decision. On December 6, 2010, the Supreme Court granted the Company's petition for writ of certiorari. On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing the Ninth Circuit and decertifying the class. On June 24, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Extend Tolling of the Statute of Limitations, indicating that they intend to pursue both individual claims and "a more narrowly defined class that would comply with the certification standards set forth by the Supreme Court." On August 19, 2011, the district judge entered an Order granting the motion in part and specifying dates by which any additional claims must be filed. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from this litigation.

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 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 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.