Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
May 08, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 8—Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings The Company is involved from time to time in claims, proceedings and litigation arising from its business and property ownership. The Company is a defendant in the following matters, among others: A class action was filed on May 15, 2009 on behalf of present and former hourly employees in California, in which the plaintiff principally alleges that the Company's routine closing procedures and security checks cause employees to incur delays that qualify as uncompensated working time. Mary Pytelewski v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court for the County of San Diego, Case No. 37-2009-00089654. On December 14, 2010, the court certified two classes of hourly non-exempt employees subject to the Company's closing lockdown procedures: one under California law for California non-union employees who were subject to the closing procedures between May 15, 2005, and October 1, 2009; and a nationwide class under federal law for full-time employees who were subject to the closing procedures between March 1, 2008, and October 1, 2009. A similar class action was filed on November 20, 2009, in the State of Washington. Raven Hawk v. Costco Wholesale Corp., King County Superior Court, Case No. 09-242196-0-SEA. On December 3, 2010, the court granted in part plaintiff's motion for class certification; the class certified consists of people employed in Washington state warehouses from November 2006 through November 2009 who had clocked out and were detained during closing procedures without compensation. Trial has been scheduled for February 13, 2012. On July 14, 2010, a putative class action was filed alleging that the Company unlawfully failed to pay overtime compensation, denied meal and rest breaks, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to provide accurate wage-itemization statements, and willfully failed to pay termination wages allegedly resulting from misclassification of certain California department managers as exempt employees. On September 3, 2010, the Company removed the case to federal court. The court remanded the action, and the Company's petition to the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the remand order was denied. The case is now proceeding in state court. Manuel Medrano v. Costco Wholesale Corp., and Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc., Superior Court of California (Los Angeles), Case No. BC441597. Claims in these actions (other than Hawk) are made under various provisions of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest, and attorneys' fees. A case brought as a class action on behalf of certain present and former female managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of promotion based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California state law. Shirley "Rae" Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., United States District Court (San Francisco), Case No. C-04-3341-MHP. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, interest and attorneys' fees. Class certification was granted by the district court on January 11, 2007. On May 11, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a petition to hear the Company's appeal of the certification. The appeal was argued on April 14, 2008. The Company continues to await a decision. On May 12, 2011, a putative class action was filed alleging that the Company failed to provide its cashiers with seats in violation of California law. Plaintiff also alludes to purported overtime violations and missed meal periods and rest breaks. Suzanne Justice v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court of California (Los Angeles), Case No. BC 461606. Class actions stated to have been brought on behalf of certain present and former Costco members: Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company, alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy equivalent received by the consumer. The Company is named in the following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.); Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v. Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v. BP North America Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.); Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al., Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.). On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. On February 21, 2008, the court denied a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to a settlement involving the actions in which it is named as a defendant. Under the settlement, which is subject to final approval by the court, the Company agreed, to the extent allowed by law, to install over five years from the effective date of the settlement temperature-correcting dispensers in the States of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Other than payments to class representatives, the settlement does not provide for cash payments to class members. On August 18, 2009, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. On August 13, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement. On February 3, 2011, a revised settlement agreement was submitted for court approval. The Company has been named as a defendant in two purported class actions relating to sales of organic milk. Hesse v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. C07-1975 (W.D. Wash.); Snell v. Aurora Dairy Corp., et al., No. 07-CV-2449 (D. Col.). Both actions claim violations of the laws of various states, essentially alleging that milk provided to Costco by its supplier Aurora Dairy Corp. was improperly labeled "organic." Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on July 18, 2008. With respect to the Company, plaintiffs seek to certify four classes of people who purchased Costco organic milk. Aurora has maintained that it has held and continues to hold valid organic certifications. The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, actual, compensatory, statutory, punitive and/or exemplary damages in unspecified amounts, as well as costs and attorneys' fees. On June 3, 2009, the district court entered an order dismissing with prejudice, among others, all claims against the Company. As a result of an appeal by the plaintiffs, on September 15, 2010, the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the rulings of the district court and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Plaintiffs have filed amended complaints. In Verzani, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 09 CV 2117 (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York), a purported nationwide class action, the plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, based on the failure of the Company to disclose on the label of its "Shrimp Tray with Cocktail Sauce" the weight of the shrimp in the item as distinct from the accompanying cocktail sauce, lettuce, and lemon wedges. The complaint seeks various forms of damages (including compensatory and treble damages and disgorgement and restitution), injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. On April 21, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent the Company from selling the shrimp tray unless the Company separately discloses the weight of the shrimp and provides shrimp consistent with the disclosed weight. By orders dated July 29 and August 6, 2009, the court denied the preliminary injunction motion and dismissed the claim for breach of contract, and on July 21, 2010, the court of appeals summarily affirmed these rulings. On September 28, 2010, the district court denied the motion of one plaintiff to file an amended complaint. On December 1, this plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this and other rulings. In Kilano, et. ano, v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:10-cv-11456-VAR-DAS (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan), filed on April 12, 2010, a purported class action was filed on behalf of certain Michigan Executive level-members who received 2% rewards. Plaintiffs allege that the Company "guarantees" that the member will receive rewards of no less than the fifty dollar difference between Executive and Gold Star membership and that the Company is required to but has failed to automatically reimburse members whose rewards are less than this difference. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. They seek compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. On April 5, 2011, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. In Khang v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. SACV11-00311-JST (CWX) (United States District Court for the Central District Of California), filed February 23, 2011, plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of all Costco Executive members in the United States who "were harmed by Defendant Costco's failure to properly issue the promised rewards and benefits to its members." He also seeks to represent a similar subclass of California-resident Executive members. Plaintiff asserts a breach of contract action on behalf of the nationwide class and California sub-class, and claims under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 and Cal. Civil Code section 1750 on behalf of the California subclass. He seeks injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, and attorneys' fees. On April 1, 2011, plaintiff dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On March 15, 2011, Robles, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation was filed as a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 11-cv-1785. The case seeks to represent a class composed of all disabled persons with ambulatory impairments who depend upon the use of a wheelchair and are allegedly unable to obtain optometry services and care at Costco Optical. Plaintiffs allege that Costco has failed to remove architectural barriers that prevent full and equal enjoyment of and access to its eye examination services. Plaintiffs allege violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. They seek injunctive relief and compensatory damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. Three shareholder derivative lawsuits have been filed, ostensibly on behalf of the Company, against certain of its current and former officers and directors, relating to the Company's stock option grants. One suit, Sandra Donnelly v. James Sinegal, et al., Case No. 08-2-23783-4 SEA (King County Superior Court), was filed in Washington state court on or about July 17, 2008. Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by "backdating" grants of stock options issued between 1997 and 2005 to various current and former executives, allegedly in violation of the Company's shareholder-approved stock option plans. The complaint asserted claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duties, and waste of corporate assets, and seeks damages, corporate governance reforms, an accounting, rescission of certain stock option grants, restitution, and certain injunctive and declaratory relief, including the declaration of a constructive trust for certain stock options and proceeds derived from the exercise of such options. On April 3, 2009, on the Company's motion the court dismissed the action, following the plaintiff's disclosure that she had ceased to own Costco common stock, a requirement for her to pursue a derivative action. The second action, Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits Trust v. James Sinegal, et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-01450-TSZ (United States District Court for the Western District of Washington), was filed on or about September 29, 2008, and named as defendants all but one of the Company's directors and certain of its senior executives. Plaintiff alleged that defendants approved the issuance of backdated stock options, concealed the backdating of stock options, and refused to vindicate the Company's rights by pursuing those who obtained improper incentive compensation. The complaint asserted claims under both state law and the federal securities laws and sought relief comparable to that sought in the state court action described above. Plaintiff further alleged that the misconduct occurred from at least 1997, and continued until 2006, and that as a result virtually all of the Company's SEC filings and financial and other public statements were false and misleading throughout this entire period (including, but not limited to, each of the Company's annual financial statements for fiscal years 1997 through 2007 inclusive). Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that defendants caused the Company to falsely represent that options were granted with exercise prices that were not less than the fair market value of the Company's stock on the date of grant and issuance when they were not, to conceal that its internal controls and accounting controls were grossly inadequate, and to grossly overstate its earnings. In addition, it was further alleged that when the Company announced in October 2006 that it had investigated its historical option granting practices and had not found fraud that announcement itself was false and misleading because, among other reasons, it failed to report that defendants had consistently received options granted at monthly lows for the grant dates and falsely suggested that backdating did not occur. Plaintiff also alleged that false and misleading statements inflated the market price of the Company's common stock and that certain individual defendants sold, and the Company purchased, shares at inflated prices. The third action, Daniel Buckfire v. James D. Sinegal, et al., No. 2:09-cv-00893-TSZ (United States District Court for the Western District of Washington), was filed on or about June 29, 2009, and contains allegations substantially similar to those in the Pirelli action. On August 12, 2009, the court entered an order consolidating the Pirelli and Buckfire actions. On October 2, 2009, plaintiffs Pirelli and Buckfire filed a consolidated amended complaint. That complaint is largely similar to previous filings, except that: it challenges additional grants (in 1995, 1996, and 2004) and alleges that additional federal securities law filings, including proxy statements and SEC Forms 10-K, Forms 10-Q and related officer certifications (generally from 1996 through and including 2008) were false and misleading for failure to adequately disclose circumstances surrounding grants of options; and now includes as defendants only the following individuals: James D. Sinegal, Richard A. Galanti, Jeffrey H. Brotman, Hamilton E. James, John W. Meisenbach, Jill S. Ruckelshaus, Charles T. Munger, Benjamin S. Carson, Sr., Richard D. DiCerchio, and David S. Petterson. On November 16, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on various grounds, including that plaintiffs failed to properly allege why a pre-suit demand had not been made on the Board of Directors. On September 20, 2010, a special committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs that would terminate the litigation. The agreement, which is subject among other things to federal district court approval, provides that the Company will pay an amount not to exceed $4.85 million in attorneys' fees to plaintiffs' counsel and will adopt or maintain certain governance, control and other process changes. On December 20, 2010, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement, and on January 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for court approval of the settlement. On February 28, 2011, the court entered an order that preliminarily approved, subject to further consideration at a settlement hearing, the proposed settlement of the action involving, among other things, a dismissal of the consolidated derivative actions with prejudice. The settlement hearing is currently scheduled for June 10, 2011, at 1:30 p.m., to determine whether the terms and conditions of the settlement provided for in the stipulation are fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of Costco and current Costco shareholders and to consider whether to enter a final judgment approving the settlement in its entirety. Any current record holders and beneficial owners of common stock of Costco as of December 20, 2010, may appear at the settlement hearing and attempt to show cause why the terms of the settlement should not be approved or why a judgment should not be entered thereon, provided, however, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, no current Company shareholder shall be heard or entitled to contest the approval of all or any of the terms and conditions of the settlement, or, if approved, the judgment to be entered thereon approving the same, unless that person has, at least fourteen days prior to the settlement hearing, filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on counsel of record (delivered by hand or sent by first-class mail, postmarked no later than May 24, 2011): (a) appropriate proof that such person was, as of December 20, 2010, a record or beneficial owner of Costco; and (b) written objections to the settlement, including the basis therefore, and copies of any papers and briefs in support thereof. In the second quarter of fiscal 2011, the Company recognized a charge to selling, general and administrative expenses in the amount of $4.85 million related to this proposed settlement. On October 4, 2006, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California, seeking records relating to the Company's receipt and handling of hazardous merchandise returned by Costco members and other records. The Company is cooperating with the inquiry and at this time cannot reasonably estimate any loss that may arise from this matter. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an Information Request to the Company, dated November 1, 2007, under the Clean Air Act. The EPA sought records regarding warehouses in the states of Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada relating to compliance with regulations concerning air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. On March 4, 2009, the Company was advised by the Department of Justice that the Department was prepared to allege that the Company has committed at least nineteen violations of the leak-repair requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 82.156(i) and at least seventy-four violations of the recordkeeping requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 82.166(k), (m) at warehouses in these four states. The Company has responded to these allegations, is engaged in communications with the Department about these and additional allegations made by letter dated September 10, 2009, and has entered into tolling agreements. Substantial penalties may be levied for violations of the Clean Air Act. The Company is cooperating with this inquiry and at this time cannot reasonably estimate any loss that might arise from this matter. On October 7, 2009, the District Attorneys for San Diego, San Joaquin and Solano Counties filed a complaint, People of the State of California v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et. al No. 37-2009-00099912 (Superior Court for the County of San Diego), alleging on information and belief that the Company has violated and continues to violate provisions of the California Health and Safety Code and the Business and Professions Code through the use of certain spill clean-up materials at its gasoline stations. Relief sought includes, among other things, requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, civil penalties, costs and attorneys' fees. On September 2, 2010, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. An amended complaint was filed on September 13, 2010. The Company has received notices from most states stating that they have appointed an agent to conduct an examination of the books and records of the Company to determine whether it has complied with state unclaimed property laws. In addition to seeking the turnover of unclaimed property subject to escheat laws, the states may seek interest, penalties, costs of examinations, and other relief. The State of Washington conducted such an examination on its own behalf and on February 4, 2011 issued an assessment. The Company filed suit on March 4, 2011, to contest the assessment. Except where indicated otherwise above, a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matters described. The Company does not believe that any pending claim, proceeding or litigation, either alone or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position; however, it is possible that an unfavorable outcome of some or all of the matters, however unlikely, could result in a charge that might be material to the results of an individual fiscal quarter.

Note 8—Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved from time to time in claims, proceedings and litigation arising from its business and property ownership. The Company is a defendant in the following matters, among others:

A class action was filed on May 15, 2009 on behalf of present and former hourly employees in California, in which the plaintiff principally alleges that the Company's routine closing procedures and security checks cause employees to incur delays that qualify as uncompensated working time. Mary Pytelewski v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court for the County of San Diego, Case No. 37-2009-00089654. On December 14, 2010, the court certified two classes of hourly non-exempt employees subject to the Company's closing lockdown procedures: one under California law for California non-union employees who were subject to the closing procedures between May 15, 2005, and October 1, 2009; and a nationwide class under federal law for full-time employees who were subject to the closing procedures between March 1, 2008, and October 1, 2009. A similar class action was filed on November 20, 2009, in the State of Washington. Raven Hawk v. Costco Wholesale Corp., King County Superior Court, Case No. 09-242196-0-SEA. On December 3, 2010, the court granted in part plaintiff's motion for class certification; the class certified consists of people employed in Washington state warehouses from November 2006 through November 2009 who had clocked out and were detained during closing procedures without compensation. Trial has been scheduled for February 13, 2012.

On July 14, 2010, a putative class action was filed alleging that the Company unlawfully failed to pay overtime compensation, denied meal and rest breaks, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to provide accurate wage-itemization statements, and willfully failed to pay termination wages allegedly resulting from misclassification of certain California department managers as exempt employees. On September 3, 2010, the Company removed the case to federal court. The court remanded the action, and the Company's petition to the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the remand order was denied. The case is now proceeding in state court. Manuel Medrano v. Costco Wholesale Corp., and Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc., Superior Court of California (Los Angeles), Case No. BC441597.

Claims in these actions (other than Hawk) are made under various provisions of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest, and attorneys' fees.

A case brought as a class action on behalf of certain present and former female managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of promotion based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California state law. Shirley "Rae" Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., United States District Court (San Francisco), Case No. C-04-3341-MHP. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, interest and attorneys' fees. Class certification was granted by the district court on January 11, 2007. On May 11, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a petition to hear the Company's appeal of the certification. The appeal was argued on April 14, 2008. The Company continues to await a decision.

On May 12, 2011, a putative class action was filed alleging that the Company failed to provide its cashiers with seats in violation of California law. Plaintiff also alludes to purported overtime violations and missed meal periods and rest breaks. Suzanne Justice v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court of California (Los Angeles), Case No. BC 461606.

Class actions stated to have been brought on behalf of certain present and former Costco members:

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company, alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy equivalent received by the consumer. The Company is named in the following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.); Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v. Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v. BP North America Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.); Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al., Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.). On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. On February 21, 2008, the court denied a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to a settlement involving the actions in which it is named as a defendant. Under the settlement, which is subject to final approval by the court, the Company agreed, to the extent allowed by law, to install over five years from the effective date of the settlement temperature-correcting dispensers in the States of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Other than payments to class representatives, the settlement does not provide for cash payments to class members. On August 18, 2009, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. On August 13, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement. On February 3, 2011, a revised settlement agreement was submitted for court approval.

The Company has been named as a defendant in two purported class actions relating to sales of organic milk. Hesse v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. C07-1975 (W.D. Wash.); Snell v. Aurora Dairy Corp., et al., No. 07-CV-2449 (D. Col.). Both actions claim violations of the laws of various states, essentially alleging that milk provided to Costco by its supplier Aurora Dairy Corp. was improperly labeled "organic." Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on July 18, 2008. With respect to the Company, plaintiffs seek to certify four classes of people who purchased Costco organic milk. Aurora has maintained that it has held and continues to hold valid organic certifications. The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, actual, compensatory, statutory, punitive and/or exemplary damages in unspecified amounts, as well as costs and attorneys' fees. On June 3, 2009, the district court entered an order dismissing with prejudice, among others, all claims against the Company. As a result of an appeal by the plaintiffs, on September 15, 2010, the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the rulings of the district court and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Plaintiffs have filed amended complaints.

In Verzani, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 09 CV 2117 (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York), a purported nationwide class action, the plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, based on the failure of the Company to disclose on the label of its "Shrimp Tray with Cocktail Sauce" the weight of the shrimp in the item as distinct from the accompanying cocktail sauce, lettuce, and lemon wedges. The complaint seeks various forms of damages (including compensatory and treble damages and disgorgement and restitution), injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. On April 21, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent the Company from selling the shrimp tray unless the Company separately discloses the weight of the shrimp and provides shrimp consistent with the disclosed weight. By orders dated July 29 and August 6, 2009, the court denied the preliminary injunction motion and dismissed the claim for breach of contract, and on July 21, 2010, the court of appeals summarily affirmed these rulings. On September 28, 2010, the district court denied the motion of one plaintiff to file an amended complaint. On December 1, this plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this and other rulings.

In Kilano, et. ano, v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:10-cv-11456-VAR-DAS (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan), filed on April 12, 2010, a purported class action was filed on behalf of certain Michigan Executive level-members who received 2% rewards. Plaintiffs allege that the Company "guarantees" that the member will receive rewards of no less than the fifty dollar difference between Executive and Gold Star membership and that the Company is required to but has failed to automatically reimburse members whose rewards are less than this difference. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. They seek compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. On April 5, 2011, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. In Khang v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. SACV11-00311-JST (CWX) (United States District Court for the Central District Of California), filed February 23, 2011, plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of all Costco Executive members in the United States who "were harmed by Defendant Costco's failure to properly issue the promised rewards and benefits to its members." He also seeks to represent a similar subclass of California-resident Executive members. Plaintiff asserts a breach of contract action on behalf of the nationwide class and California sub-class, and claims under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 and Cal. Civil Code section 1750 on behalf of the California subclass. He seeks injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, and attorneys' fees. On April 1, 2011, plaintiff dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

On March 15, 2011, Robles, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation was filed as a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 11-cv-1785. The case seeks to represent a class composed of all disabled persons with ambulatory impairments who depend upon the use of a wheelchair and are allegedly unable to obtain optometry services and care at Costco Optical. Plaintiffs allege that Costco has failed to remove architectural barriers that prevent full and equal enjoyment of and access to its eye examination services. Plaintiffs allege violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. They seek injunctive relief and compensatory damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

Three shareholder derivative lawsuits have been filed, ostensibly on behalf of the Company, against certain of its current and former officers and directors, relating to the Company's stock option grants. One suit, Sandra Donnelly v. James Sinegal, et al., Case No. 08-2-23783-4 SEA (King County Superior Court), was filed in Washington state court on or about July 17, 2008. Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by "backdating" grants of stock options issued between 1997 and 2005 to various current and former executives, allegedly in violation of the Company's shareholder-approved stock option plans. The complaint asserted claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duties, and waste of corporate assets, and seeks damages, corporate governance reforms, an accounting, rescission of certain stock option grants, restitution, and certain injunctive and declaratory relief, including the declaration of a constructive trust for certain stock options and proceeds derived from the exercise of such options. On April 3, 2009, on the Company's motion the court dismissed the action, following the plaintiff's disclosure that she had ceased to own Costco common stock, a requirement for her to pursue a derivative action. The second action, Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits Trust v. James Sinegal, et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-01450-TSZ (United States District Court for the Western District of Washington), was filed on or about September 29, 2008, and named as defendants all but one of the Company's directors and certain of its senior executives. Plaintiff alleged that defendants approved the issuance of backdated stock options, concealed the backdating of stock options, and refused to vindicate the Company's rights by pursuing those who obtained improper incentive compensation. The complaint asserted claims under both state law and the federal securities laws and sought relief comparable to that sought in the state court action described above. Plaintiff further alleged that the misconduct occurred from at least 1997, and continued until 2006, and that as a result virtually all of the Company's SEC filings and financial and other public statements were false and misleading throughout this entire period (including, but not limited to, each of the Company's annual financial statements for fiscal years 1997 through 2007 inclusive). Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that defendants caused the Company to falsely represent that options were granted with exercise prices that were not less than the fair market value of the Company's stock on the date of grant and issuance when they were not, to conceal that its internal controls and accounting controls were grossly inadequate, and to grossly overstate its earnings. In addition, it was further alleged that when the Company announced in October 2006 that it had investigated its historical option granting practices and had not found fraud that announcement itself was false and misleading because, among other reasons, it failed to report that defendants had consistently received options granted at monthly lows for the grant dates and falsely suggested that backdating did not occur. Plaintiff also alleged that false and misleading statements inflated the market price of the Company's common stock and that certain individual defendants sold, and the Company purchased, shares at inflated prices. The third action, Daniel Buckfire v. James D. Sinegal, et al., No. 2:09-cv-00893-TSZ (United States District Court for the Western District of Washington), was filed on or about June 29, 2009, and contains allegations substantially similar to those in the Pirelli action. On August 12, 2009, the court entered an order consolidating the Pirelli and Buckfire actions. On October 2, 2009, plaintiffs Pirelli and Buckfire filed a consolidated amended complaint. That complaint is largely similar to previous filings, except that: it challenges additional grants (in 1995, 1996, and 2004) and alleges that additional federal securities law filings, including proxy statements and SEC Forms 10-K, Forms 10-Q and related officer certifications (generally from 1996 through and including 2008) were false and misleading for failure to adequately disclose circumstances surrounding grants of options; and now includes as defendants only the following individuals: James D. Sinegal, Richard A. Galanti, Jeffrey H. Brotman, Hamilton E. James, John W. Meisenbach, Jill S. Ruckelshaus, Charles T. Munger, Benjamin S. Carson, Sr., Richard D. DiCerchio, and David S. Petterson. On November 16, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on various grounds, including that plaintiffs failed to properly allege why a pre-suit demand had not been made on the Board of Directors. On September 20, 2010, a special committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs that would terminate the litigation. The agreement, which is subject among other things to federal district court approval, provides that the Company will pay an amount not to exceed $4.85 million in attorneys' fees to plaintiffs' counsel and will adopt or maintain certain governance, control and other process changes. On December 20, 2010, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement, and on January 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for court approval of the settlement. On February 28, 2011, the court entered an order that preliminarily approved, subject to further consideration at a settlement hearing, the proposed settlement of the action involving, among other things, a dismissal of the consolidated derivative actions with prejudice. The settlement hearing is currently scheduled for June 10, 2011, at 1:30 p.m., to determine whether the terms and conditions of the settlement provided for in the stipulation are fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of Costco and current Costco shareholders and to consider whether to enter a final judgment approving the settlement in its entirety. Any current record holders and beneficial owners of common stock of Costco as of December 20, 2010, may appear at the settlement hearing and attempt to show cause why the terms of the settlement should not be approved or why a judgment should not be entered thereon, provided, however, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, no current Company shareholder shall be heard or entitled to contest the approval of all or any of the terms and conditions of the settlement, or, if approved, the judgment to be entered thereon approving the same, unless that person has, at least fourteen days prior to the settlement hearing, filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on counsel of record (delivered by hand or sent by first-class mail, postmarked no later than May 24, 2011): (a) appropriate proof that such person was, as of December 20, 2010, a record or beneficial owner of Costco; and (b) written objections to the settlement, including the basis therefore, and copies of any papers and briefs in support thereof. In the second quarter of fiscal 2011, the Company recognized a charge to selling, general and administrative expenses in the amount of $4.85 million related to this proposed settlement.

On October 4, 2006, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California, seeking records relating to the Company's receipt and handling of hazardous merchandise returned by Costco members and other records. The Company is cooperating with the inquiry and at this time cannot reasonably estimate any loss that may arise from this matter.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an Information Request to the Company, dated November 1, 2007, under the Clean Air Act. The EPA sought records regarding warehouses in the states of Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada relating to compliance with regulations concerning air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. On March 4, 2009, the Company was advised by the Department of Justice that the Department was prepared to allege that the Company has committed at least nineteen violations of the leak-repair requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 82.156(i) and at least seventy-four violations of the recordkeeping requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 82.166(k), (m) at warehouses in these four states. The Company has responded to these allegations, is engaged in communications with the Department about these and additional allegations made by letter dated September 10, 2009, and has entered into tolling agreements. Substantial penalties may be levied for violations of the Clean Air Act. The Company is cooperating with this inquiry and at this time cannot reasonably estimate any loss that might arise from this matter.

On October 7, 2009, the District Attorneys for San Diego, San Joaquin and Solano Counties filed a complaint, People of the State of California v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et. al No. 37-2009-00099912 (Superior Court for the County of San Diego), alleging on information and belief that the Company has violated and continues to violate provisions of the California Health and Safety Code and the Business and Professions Code through the use of certain spill clean-up materials at its gasoline stations. Relief sought includes, among other things, requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, civil penalties, costs and attorneys' fees. On September 2, 2010, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. An amended complaint was filed on September 13, 2010.

The Company has received notices from most states stating that they have appointed an agent to conduct an examination of the books and records of the Company to determine whether it has complied with state unclaimed property laws. In addition to seeking the turnover of unclaimed property subject to escheat laws, the states may seek interest, penalties, costs of examinations, and other relief. The State of Washington conducted such an examination on its own behalf and on February 4, 2011 issued an assessment. The Company filed suit on March 4, 2011, to contest the assessment.

Except where indicated otherwise above, a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matters described. The Company does not believe that any pending claim, proceeding or litigation, either alone or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position; however, it is possible that an unfavorable outcome of some or all of the matters, however unlikely, could result in a charge that might be material to the results of an individual fiscal quarter.