Item 4. Controls and Procedures

We maintain disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to provide reasonable assurance that information, which is required to be timely disclosed, is accumulated and communicated to management in a timely fashion. In designing and evaluating such controls and procedures, we recognize that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives. Our management is necessarily required to use judgment in evaluating controls and procedures. Also, we have investments in unconsolidated entities. Since we do not control or manage those entities, our controls and procedures with respect to those entities are substantially more limited than those we maintain with respect to our consolidated subsidiaries.

In the ordinary course of business, we review our internal control over financial reporting and make changes to our systems and processes to improve such controls and increase efficiency, while ensuring that we maintain an effective internal control environment. Changes may include such activities as implementing new, more efficient systems, updating existing systems, automating manual processes, standardizing controls globally, migrating certain processes to our shared services organizations and increasing monitoring controls. In the first quarter of fiscal 2024, we began implementing a new financial system, including our general ledger, in stages beginning in our U.S. and Canadian markets. This financial system is a significant component of our internal control over financial reporting. We will continue to implement other components of our new financial system in stages, and each implementation will impact our internal control over financial reporting.

An evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report was performed under the supervision and with the participation of management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are effective to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, is accumulated and communicated to management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure and are effective to provide reasonable assurance that such information is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified by the SEC's rules and forms. Except for the new financial system implementation noted above, there has been no significant change in the Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2023, that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

I. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: We discuss certain legal proceedings in Part I of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q under the caption "Item 1. Financial Statements," in Note 6 to our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, which is captioned "Contingencies," under the sub-caption "Legal Proceedings." We refer you to that discussion for important information concerning those legal proceedings, including the basis for such actions and, where known, the relief sought. We provide the following additional information concerning those legal proceedings, including the name of the lawsuit, the court in which the lawsuit is pending, and the date on which the petition commencing the lawsuit was filed.

Prescription Opiate Litigation: In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) (the "MDL"). The MDL is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and includes over 2,000 cases as of May 18, 2023. The liability phase of a single, two-county trial in one of the MDL cases against a number of parties, including the Company, regarding opioid dispensing claims resulted in a jury verdict on November 23, 2021, finding in favor of the plaintiffs as to the liability of all defendants, including the Company. The abatement phase of the single, two-county trial resulted in a judgment on August 17, 2022, that ordered all three defendants, including the Company, to pay an aggregate amount of approximately $0.7 billion over fifteen years, on a joint and several liability basis, and granted the plaintiffs injunctive relief. The Company has filed an appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The monetary aspect of the judgment is stayed pending appeal, and the injunctive portion of the judgment went into effect on February 20, 2023. The MDL has designated five additional single-county cases as bellwethers to proceed through discovery. In addition, there are approximately 300 other cases pending in state and federal courts throughout the country as of May 18, 2023, as well as other cases in Canada against Wal-Mart Canada Corp. and certain other subsidiaries of the Company. The case citations and currently scheduled trial dates, where applicable, are listed on Exhibit 99.1 to this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

Opioid Settlement Framework: On November 15, 2022, the Company announced that it had agreed to a Settlement Framework to resolve substantially all opioids-related lawsuits filed against the Company by states, political subdivisions, and Native American tribes (other than the single, two-county trial on appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as described above), as described in more detail in Note 6 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company now has settlement agreements with all 50 states, including four states that previously settled with the Company, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and three other U.S. territories, that are intended to resolve substantially all opioids-related lawsuits brought by state and local governments against the Company. The settlement will take effect if a sufficient number of political subdivisions also join. As described in more detail in Note 6 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, the Settlement Framework will not become effective unless and until a settlement administrator determines whether a sufficient number of political subdivisions have agreed to participate in the Settlement Framework.

DOJ Opioid Civil Litigation: A civil complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has been filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (the "DOJ") against the Company, in which the DOJ alleges violations of the Controlled Substances Act related to nationwide distribution and dispensing of opioids. U.S. v. Walmart Inc., et al., USDC, Dist. of DE, 12/22/20. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the DOJ complaint on February 22, 2021. After the parties had fully briefed the Company's motion to dismiss, the DOJ filed an amended complaint on October 7, 2022. On November 7, 2022, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The motion remains pending.

Opioids Related Securities Class Actions and Derivative Litigation: Three derivative complaints and two securities class actions drawing heavily on the allegations of the DOJ complaint have been filed in Delaware naming the Company and various current and former directors and certain current and former officers as defendants. The plaintiffs in the derivative suits (in which the Company is a nominal defendant) allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with oversight of opioids dispensing and distribution and that the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and are liable for contribution under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act in connection with the Company's disclosures about opioids. Two of the derivative suits have been filed in the U.S. District Court in Delaware and those suits have been stayed pending further developments in other opioids litigation matters. The other derivative suit has been filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The defendants in the derivative suit pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery moved to dismiss and/or to stay that case on December 21, 2021; the plaintiffs responded by filing an amended complaint on February 22, 2022. On April 20, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss and/or stay proceedings on the amended complaint. In two orders issued on April 12 and 26, 2023, the Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to claims involving the Company' s distribution practices and denied the remainder of the motion, including the Company's request to stay the litigation. On May 5, 2023, the Company's Board of Directors appointed an independent Special Litigation Committee (the "SLC") to investigate the allegations regarding certain current and former officers and directors named in the various proceedings regarding oversight with respect to opioids. The Board has authorized the SLC to retain independent legal counsel and such other advisors as the SLC deems appropriate in carrying out its duties.

The securities class actions, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act regarding the Company's disclosures with respect to opioids, purport to be filed on behalf of a class of investors who acquired Walmart stock from March 30, 2016 through December 22, 2020. On May 11, 2021, the U.S. District Court in Delaware consolidated the class actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated securities class action on October 8, 2021. On October 14, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which revised the applicable putative class of investors to those who acquired Walmart stock from March 31, 2017 through December 22, 2020. On November 16, 2022, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. That motion remains pending.

Derivative Lawsuits: Abt v. Alvarez et al., USDC, Dist. of DE, 2/9/21; Nguyen v. McMillon et al., USDC, Dist. of DE, 4/16/21: Ontario Provincial Council of Carpenters' Pension Trust Fund et al. v. Walton et al., DE Court of Chancery, 9/27/21.

Securities Class Actions: Stanton v. Walmart Inc. et al., USDC, Dist. of DE, 1/20/21 and Martin v. Walmart Inc. et al., USDC*,* Dist. of DE, 3/5/21, consolidated into In re Walmart Inc. Securities Litigation, USDC, Dist. of DE, 5/11/21.

ASDA Equal Value Claims: Ms S Brierley & Others v. ASDA Stores Ltd (2406372/2008 & Others – Manchester Employment Tribunal); Abbas & Others v Asda Stores limited (KB-2022-003243); and Abusubih & Others v Asda Stores limited (KB-2022-003240).

Money Transfer Agent Services Litigation: Federal Trade Commission v. Walmart Inc. (CV-3372), USDC, N. Dist. Of Ill, 6/28/22.

II. CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS

Foreign Direct Investment Matters: In July 2021, the Directorate of Enforcement in India issued a show cause notice to Flipkart Private Limited and one of its subsidiaries ("Flipkart"), and to unrelated companies and individuals, including certain current and former shareholders and directors of Flipkart. The notice requests the recipients to show cause as to why further proceedings under India's Foreign Direct Investment rules and regulations (the "Rules") should not be initiated against them based on alleged violations during the period from 2009 to 2015, prior to the Company's acquisition of a majority stake in Flipkart in 2018. The notice is an initial stage of proceedings under the Rules which could, depending upon the conclusions at the end of the initial stage, lead to a hearing to consider the merits of the allegations described in the notice. If a hearing is initiated and if it is determined that violations of the Rules occurred, the regulatory authority has the authority to impose monetary and/or non-monetary relief. Flipkart has begun the process of responding to the notice and, if the matter progresses to a consideration of the merits of the allegations described in the notice is initiated, Flipkart intends to defend against the allegations vigorously. Due to the fact that this process is in an early stage, the Company is unable to predict whether the notice will lead to a hearing on the merits or, if it does, the final outcome of the resulting proceedings. While the Company does not currently believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, the Company can provide no assurance as to the scope or outcome of any proceeding that might result from the notice, the amount of the proceeds the Company may receive in indemnification from individuals and entities that sold shares to the Company under the 2018 agreement pursuant to which the Company acquired its majority stake in Flipkart, and can provide no assurance as to whether there will be a material adverse effect to its business or its Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS: Item 103 of SEC Regulation S-K requires disclosure of certain environmental matters when a governmental authority is a party to the proceedings and such proceedings involve potential monetary sanctions that the Company reasonably believes will exceed an applied threshold not to exceed $1 million.

In December 2021, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of California filed suit against the Company, bringing enforcement claims regarding Walmart's management of waste consumer products at its California facilities that are alleged to be hazardous. The suit was filed in Superior Court of Alameda County, California, Case No. 21CV004367, People v. Walmart Inc., and a trial date has been scheduled for April 22, 2024. The Company believes the suit is without merit and is vigorously defending this litigation matter. While the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, the potential for penalties or settlement costs could exceed $1 million. Although the Company does not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, the Company can provide no assurance as to the scope and outcome of this matter and no assurance as to whether there will be a material adverse effect to its business or its Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.