Home Depot 2009 Annual Report Download - page 18

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In July 2005, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office in Los
Angeles, California, seeking documents and information relating to the Company’s handling, storage and
disposal of hazardous waste. The Company is cooperating fully with the United States Attorney’s Office.
Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding, it does not expect any such outcome to
have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.
In August 2005, the Company received an informal request from the staff of the SEC for information related to
the Company’s return-to-vendor policies and procedures. Subsequent to August 2005, the SEC staff requested
additional information related to those policies and procedures. The SEC staff last contacted the Company
regarding this matter in January 2007. The Company responded to the requests and will continue to fully
cooperate with the SEC staff. The SEC has informed the Company that the informal inquiry is not an indication
that any violations of law have occurred. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, it
does not expect that this informal inquiry will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
condition or results of operations.
The following actions have been filed against the Company and, in some cases, against certain of its current and
former officers and directors as described below. Although the Company cannot predict their outcome, it does
not expect these actions, individually or together, will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated
financial condition or results of operations.
As previously reported, in the second and third quarters of fiscal 2006, three purported, but uncertified, class
actions were filed against the Company, The Home Depot FutureBuilder Administrative Committee and certain
of the Company’s current and former directors and employees alleging breach of fiduciary duty in violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) in connection with the Company’s
return-to-vendor and stock option practices. These actions were joined into one case in 2007, and the joint
amended complaint seeks certification as a class action, unspecified damages, costs, attorney’s fees and
equitable and injunctive relief. The case is currently before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia in Atlanta, following the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in July 2008
reversing the District Court’s prior decision on standing, affirming its finding that the plaintiffs failed to
exhaust the administrative remedies provided under ERISA, and remanding the matter to the District Court for
further adjudication. On November 9, 2009, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint following their pursuit of
administrative remedies. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, it does not expect
the outcome to have a material effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.
On January 27, 2010, the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles in California approved the Company’s
settlement with the plaintiffs in five lawsuits containing multiple class-action allegations that the Company
failed to provide meal breaks. The complaints were filed by current and former hourly associates from the first
quarter of 2004 through the fourth quarter of 2008. The disposition of this matter is now complete. As
previously disclosed, the Company established a reserve for this settlement in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008.
The settlement did not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of
operations.
Item 4. [Reserved]
12