Commitments and Contingencies
Legal Proceedings
The Company is involved in a number of claims, proceedings and litigation arising from its business and property ownership. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company establishes an accrual for legal proceedings if and when those matters reach a stage where they present loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable. In such cases, there may be a possible exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. The Company monitors those matters for developments that would affect the likelihood of a loss and the accrued amount, if any, thereof, and adjusts the amount as appropriate. If the loss contingency at issue is not both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company does not establish an accrual, but will continue to monitor the matter for developments that will make the loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. As of the date of this report, the Company has not recorded an accrual with respect to any matter described below. In each case, there is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred, including a loss in excess of the applicable accrual. For matters where no accrual has been recorded, the possible loss or range of loss (including any loss in excess of our accrual) cannot in our view be reasonably estimated because, among other things, (i) the remedies or penalties sought are indeterminate or unspecified, (ii) the legal and/or factual theories are not well developed; and/or (iii) the matters involve complex or novel legal theories or a large number of parties.
The Company is a defendant in the following matters, among others:
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 September 16, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the order of class certification and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. On September 25, 2012, the district court certified a class of women in the United States denied promotion to warehouse general manager or assistant general manager since January 3, 2002. Currently the class is believed to be approximately 1,150 people. A trial has been set for March 2014. In October 2013 the parties reached an agreement in principle on a settlement, which is subject to the execution of definitive documentation and court approval. Any payments to class members would be contingent upon proof of liability in individual hearings. Payments under the settlement would be immaterial to the Company’s operations or financial position.
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 April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to settle 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 September 22, 2011, the court preliminarily approved a revised settlement, which did not materially alter the terms. On April 24, 2012, the court granted final approval of the revised settlement. A class member who objected has filed a notice of appeal from the order approving the settlement. Plaintiffs have moved for an award of $10 million in attorneys’ fees, as well as an award of costs and payments to class representatives. The Company has opposed the motion.
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 has entered into a tolling agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an Information Request to the Company, dated November 1, 2007, regarding warehouses in the states of Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada and 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 states. The Company has responded to these allegations, is engaged in communications with the Department about these and additional allegations, 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.
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. In July 2013, the matter was settled with, among other things, payment of an immaterial sum to the County of San Diego as partial reimbursement for costs incurred in the matter.
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 to contest the assessment. In November 2012 the matter was settled for an amount that was immaterial and less than the amount of the assessment.
The Company has received from the Drug Enforcement Administration subpoenas and administrative inspection warrants concerning the Company's fulfillment of prescriptions related to controlled substances and related practices. The Company is seeking to cooperate with these processes.
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.
