NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

(1) General

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES. These interim financial statements of FedEx Corporation (“FedEx”) have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) instructions for interim financial information, and should be read in conjunction with our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2011 (“Annual Report”). Accordingly, significant accounting policies and other disclosures normally provided have been omitted since such items are disclosed in our Annual Report.

In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments (including normal recurring adjustments) necessary to present fairly our financial position as of February 29, 2012, the results of our operations for the three- and nine-month periods ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011 and cash flows for the nine-month periods ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011. Operating results for the three- and nine-month periods ended February 29, 2012 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending May 31, 2012.

Except as otherwise specified, references to years indicate our fiscal year ending May 31, 2012 or ended May 31 of the year referenced and comparisons are to the corresponding period of the prior year.

BUSINESS ACQUISITION . On July 25, 2011, we completed our acquisition of Servicios Nacionales Mupa, S.A. de C.V. (MultiPack), a Mexican domestic express package delivery company, for $128 million in cash from operations. The financial results of the acquired business are included in the Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx Express”) segment from the date of acquisition and were not material to our results of operations or financial condition. Substantially all of the purchase price was allocated to goodwill, which was entirely attributed to our FedEx Express reporting unit.

EMPLOYEES UNDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ARRANGEMENTS. The pilots of FedEx Express, which represent a small number of FedEx Express’s total employees, are employed under a collective bargaining agreement. During the fourth quarter of 2011 the pilots ratified a new labor contract that includes safety initiatives, increases in hourly pay rates and travel per diem rates, and provisions for opening a European crew base. The new contract becomes amendable in March 2013 as the pilot’s union determined, during the third quarter of 2012, not to exercise its option to shorten the contract. In addition to our pilots at FedEx Express, certain of FedEx’s non-U.S. employees are unionized.

STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION. We have two types of equity-based compensation: stock options and restricted stock. The key terms of the stock option and restricted stock awards granted under our incentive stock plans and all financial disclosures about these programs are set forth in our Annual Report.

Our stock-based compensation expense was $22 million for the three-month period ended February 29, 2012 and $83 million for the nine-month period ended February 29, 2012. Our stock-based compensation expense was $21 million for the three-month period ended February 28, 2011 and $78 million for the nine-month period ended February 28, 2011. Due to its immateriality, additional disclosures related to stock-based compensation have been excluded from this quarterly report.

NEW ACCOUNTING GUIDANCE. New accounting rules and disclosure requirements can significantly impact our reported results and the comparability of our financial statements. See our Annual Report for a discussion of the impact of new accounting guidance issued but not yet effective as of May 31, 2011. We believe that no new accounting guidance was adopted or issued during the nine months of 2012 that is relevant to the readers of our financial statements. However, there are numerous new proposals under development which, if and when enacted, may have a significant impact on our financial reporting.

- 7 -

Table of Contents

TREASURY SHARES. During the second quarter of 2012, we repurchased 2.8 million FedEx common shares at an average price of $70 per share for a total of $197 million. As of February 29, 2012, 2.9 million shares remained under existing share repurchase authorizations.

DIVIDENDS DECLARED PER COMMON SHARE. On February 17, 2012, our Board of Directors declared a dividend of $0.13 per share of common stock. The dividend will be paid on April 2, 2012 to stockholders of record as of the close of business on March 12, 2012. Each quarterly dividend payment is subject to review and approval by our Board of Directors, and we evaluate our dividend payment amount on an annual basis at the end of each fiscal year.

(2) Comprehensive Income

The following tables provide a reconciliation of net income reported in our financial statements to comprehensive income for the periods ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011 (in millions):

(3) Financing Arrangements

We have a shelf registration statement filed with the SEC that allows us to sell, in one or more future offerings, any combination of our unsecured debt securities and common stock.

A $1 billion revolving credit facility is available to finance our operations and other cash flow needs and to provide support for the issuance of commercial paper. The revolving credit agreement expires in April 2016. The agreement contains a financial covenant, which requires us to maintain a leverage ratio of adjusted debt (long-term debt, including the current portion of such debt, plus six times our last four fiscal quarters’ rentals and landing fees) to capital (adjusted debt plus total common stockholders’ investment) that does not exceed 70%. Our leverage ratio of adjusted debt to capital was 50% at February 29, 2012. We believe the leverage ratio covenant is our only significant restrictive covenant in our revolving credit agreement. Our revolving credit agreement contains other customary covenants that do not, individually or in the aggregate, materially restrict the conduct of our business. We are in compliance with the leverage ratio covenant and all other covenants of our revolving credit agreement and do not expect the covenants to affect our operations, including our liquidity or expected funding needs. As of February 29, 2012, no commercial paper was outstanding, and the entire $1 billion under the revolving credit facility was available for future borrowings.

- 8 -

Table of Contents

Long-term debt, exclusive of capital leases, had a carrying value of $1.5 billion compared with an estimated fair value of $1.9 billion at February 29, 2012 and May 31, 2011. The estimated fair values were determined based on quoted market prices or on the current rates offered for debt with similar terms and maturities.

(4) Computation of Earnings Per Share

The calculation of basic and diluted earnings per common share for the periods ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011 was as follows (in millions, except per share amounts):

(5) Retirement Plans

We sponsor programs that provide retirement benefits to most of our employees. These programs include defined benefit pension plans, defined contribution plans and postretirement healthcare plans. Key terms of our retirement plans are provided in our Annual Report. Our retirement plans costs for the periods ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011 were as follows (in millions):

- 9 -

Table of Contents

The three- and nine-month periods ended February 29, 2012 reflect the full restoration on January 1, 2011 of company-matching contributions for our 401(k) plans.

Net periodic benefit cost of the pension and postretirement healthcare plans for the periods ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011 included the following components (in millions):

Contributions to our tax-qualified U.S. domestic pension plans (“U.S. Pension Plans”) for the nine-month periods ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011 were as follows (in millions):

Our U.S. Pension Plans have ample funds to meet expected benefit payments.

- 10 -

Table of Contents

(6) Business Segment Information

We provide a broad portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business services through companies competing collectively, operating independently and managed collaboratively under the respected FedEx brand. Our primary operating companies include FedEx Express, the world’s largest express transportation company; FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (“FedEx Ground”), a leading provider of small-package ground delivery services; and FedEx Freight, Inc. (“FedEx Freight”), a leading U.S. provider of less-than-truckload (“LTL”) freight services.

Our reportable segments include the following businesses:

FedEx Services Segment

The FedEx Services segment operates combined sales, marketing, administrative and information technology functions in shared services operations that support our transportation businesses and allow us to obtain synergies from the combination of these functions. For the international regions of FedEx Express, some of these functions are performed on a regional basis by FedEx Express and reported in the FedEx Express segment in expense line items outside of intercompany charges. The FedEx Services segment includes: FedEx Services, which provides sales, marketing and information technology support to our other companies; FedEx TechConnect, which is responsible for customer service, technical support, billings and collections for U.S. customers of our major business units; and FedEx Office, which provides an array of document and business services and retail access to our customers for our package transportation businesses.

The FedEx Services segment provides direct and indirect support to our transportation businesses, and we allocate all of the net operating costs of the FedEx Services segment (including the net operating results of FedEx Office) to reflect the full cost of operating our transportation businesses in the results of those segments. Within the FedEx Services segment allocation, the net operating results of FedEx Office are allocated to FedEx Express and FedEx Ground. The allocations of net operating costs are based on metrics such as relative revenues or estimated services provided. We believe these allocations approximate the net cost of providing these functions. We review and evaluate the performance of our transportation segments based on operating income (inclusive of FedEx Services segment allocations). For the FedEx Services segment, performance is evaluated based on the impact of its total allocated net operating costs on our transportation segments.

The operating expenses line item “Intercompany charges” on the accompanying unaudited financial summaries of our transportation segments in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition reflects the allocations from the FedEx Services segment to the respective transportation segments. The “Intercompany charges” caption also includes charges and credits for administrative services provided between operating companies and certain other costs such as corporate management fees related to services received for general corporate oversight, including executive officers and certain legal and finance functions. We believe these allocations approximate the net cost of providing these functions.

- 11 -

Table of Contents

Other Intersegment Transactions

Certain FedEx operating companies provide transportation and related services for other FedEx companies outside their reportable segment. Billings for such services are based on negotiated rates, which we believe approximate fair value, and are reflected as revenues of the billing segment. These rates are adjusted from time to time based on market conditions. Such intersegment revenues and expenses are eliminated in our consolidated results and are not separately identified in the following segment information because the amounts are not material.

The following table provides a reconciliation of reportable segment revenues and operating income (loss) to our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statement totals for the periods ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011 (in millions):

(7) Commitments

As of February 29, 2012, our purchase commitments under various contracts for the remainder of 2012 and annually thereafter were as follows (in millions):

The amounts reflected in the table above for purchase commitments represent noncancelable agreements to purchase goods or services. Our obligation to purchase 13 Boeing 777 Freighters (“B777F”) is conditioned upon there being no event that causes FedEx Express or its employees not to be covered by the Railway Labor Act of 1926, as amended (“RLA”). Commitments to purchase aircraft in passenger configuration do not include the attendant costs to modify these aircraft for cargo transport unless we have entered into noncancelable commitments to modify such aircraft. Open purchase orders that are cancelable are not considered unconditional purchase obligations for financial reporting purposes and are not included in the table above.

- 12 -

Table of Contents

In December 2011, FedEx Express entered into an agreement to acquire 27 new Boeing 767-300 Freighter (“B767F”) aircraft, with the first three arriving in 2014 followed by six per year from 2015 to 2018. In conjunction with the execution of the B767F aircraft purchase agreement, FedEx Express also delayed the delivery of nine B777F aircraft, five of which were deferred from 2014 and one per year from 2015 to 2018, to better align air network capacity to demand. FedEx Express also removed the RLA condition from two of the 15 B777F aircraft (bringing the number of purchase obligations subject to the condition to 13) and exercised two B777F options for aircraft to be delivered at the end of the delivery schedule.

We had $734 million in deposits and progress payments as of February 29, 2012 on aircraft purchases and other planned aircraft-related transactions. These deposits are classified in the “Other assets” caption of our condensed consolidated balance sheets. In addition to our commitment to purchase B777Fs and B767Fs, our aircraft purchase commitments include the Boeing 757 (“B757”) in passenger configuration, which will require additional costs to modify for cargo transport. Aircraft and aircraft-related contracts are subject to price escalations. The following table is a summary of the key aircraft we are committed to purchase as of February 29, 2012, with the year of expected delivery:

A summary of future minimum lease payments under capital leases and noncancelable operating leases with an initial or remaining term in excess of one year at February 29, 2012 is as follows (in millions):

While certain of our lease agreements contain covenants governing the use of the leased assets or require us to maintain certain levels of insurance, none of our lease agreements include material financial covenants or limitations.

- 13 -

Table of Contents

(8) Contingencies

Wage-and-Hour. We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits containing various class-action allegations of wage-and-hour violations. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other things, that they were forced to work “off the clock,” were not paid overtime or were not provided work breaks or other benefits. The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both. We do not believe that a material loss is reasonably possible with respect to any of these matters.

In September 2009, in Taylor v. FedEx Freight , a California state court granted class certification, certifying a class of all current and former drivers employed by FedEx Freight in California who performed linehaul services since June 2003. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that they were forced to work “off the clock” and were not provided with required rest or meal breaks. We entered into a tentative settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in June 2011 for an immaterial amount. The order of preliminary approval of settlement was entered by the court in September 2011. Class notices were mailed in October 2011. The court granted final approval of the settlement in January 2012.

Independent Contractor — Lawsuits and State Administrative Proceedings. FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits (including 30 that have been certified as class actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative proceedings that claim that the company’s owner-operators should be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases. On December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the status of the owner-operators ( i.e., independent contractor vs. employee). In sum, the court has now ruled on our summary judgment motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified as class actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases were contractors as a matter of the law of the following states: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas (the court previously dismissed without prejudice the nationwide class claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 based on the plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies), Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases. The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case first in January 2012.

The court remanded the other eight certified class actions back to the district courts where they were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Specifically, in the five cases in Arkansas, California, Florida, and Oregon (two certified cases), the court’s ruling granted summary judgment in FedEx Ground’s favor on all of the certified claims but did not decide the uncertified claims. In the three cases filed in Kentucky, Nevada and New Hampshire, the court ruled in favor of FedEx Ground on some of the claims and against FedEx Ground on at least one claim. In January 2011, we asked the court to issue final judgments in these eight cases, and the court denied our motion. In July 2011, we filed a petition to the Seventh Circuit asking the appeals court to require these cases to be returned to the multidistrict litigation court for issuance of a final judgment so that all appeals of the December 2010 summary judgment rulings would be heard by the Seventh Circuit, and in November 2011, the Seventh Circuit denied our petition.

In January 2008, one of the contractor-model lawsuits that is not part of the multidistrict litigation, Anfinson v. FedEx Ground , was certified as a class action by a Washington state court. The plaintiffs in Anfinson represent a class of single-route, pickup-and-delivery owner-operators in Washington from December 21, 2001 through December 31, 2005 and allege that the class members should be reimbursed as employees for their uniform expenses and should receive overtime pay. In March 2009, a jury trial in the Anfinson case was held, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of FedEx Ground, finding that all 320 class members were independent contractors, not employees. The plaintiffs appealed the verdict. In December 2010, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings, including a new trial. We filed a motion to reconsider, and this motion was denied. In March 2011, we filed a discretionary appeal with the Washington Supreme Court, and in August 2011, that petition was granted. The Washington Supreme Court heard oral arguments in February 2012.

- 14 -

Table of Contents

In August 2010, another one of the contractor-model lawsuits that is not part of the multidistrict litigation, Rascon v. FedEx Ground , was certified as a class action by a Colorado state court. The plaintiff in Rascon represents a class of single-route, pickup-and-delivery owner-operators in Colorado who drove vehicles weighing less than 10,001 pounds at any time from August 27, 2005 through the present. The lawsuit seeks unpaid overtime compensation, and related penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs, under Colorado law. Our applications for appeal challenging this class certification decision have been rejected.

Other contractor-model cases that are not or are no longer part of the multidistrict litigation are in varying stages of litigation.

With respect to the state administrative proceedings relating to the classification of FedEx Ground’s owner-operators as independent contractors, during the second quarter of 2011, the attorneys general in New York and Kentucky each filed lawsuits against FedEx Ground challenging the validity of the contractor model. In January 2012, FedEx Ground settled the lawsuit filed by the Kentucky Attorney General for an immaterial amount.

While the granting of summary judgment in favor of FedEx Ground by the multidistrict litigation court in 20 of the 28 cases that had been certified as class actions remains subject to appeal, we believe that it significantly improves the likelihood that our independent contractor model will be upheld. Adverse determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground’s independent contractors, however, could, among other things, entitle certain of our contractors and their drivers to the reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-and-hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax and benefit liability for FedEx Ground, and could result in changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground’s owner-operators in certain jurisdictions. We believe that FedEx Ground’s owner-operators are properly classified as independent contractors and that FedEx Ground is not an employer of the drivers of the company’s independent contractors. While it is reasonably possible that potential loss in some of these lawsuits or such changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground’s owner-operators could be material, we cannot yet determine the amount or reasonable range of potential loss. A number of factors contribute to this. The number of plaintiffs in these lawsuits continues to change, with some being dismissed and others being added and, as to new plaintiffs, discovery is still ongoing. In addition, the parties have not yet conducted any discovery into damages, which could vary considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff. Further, the range of potential loss could be impacted considerably by future rulings on the merits of certain claims and FedEx Ground’s various defenses, and on evidentiary issues. In any event, we do not believe that a material loss is probable in these matters.

ATA Airlines. In October 2010, a jury returned a verdict in favor of ATA Airlines in its breach of contract lawsuit against FedEx Express and awarded damages of $66 million, and in January 2011, the court awarded ATA pre-judgment interest of $5 million. In December 2011, the Seventh Circuit overturned the entire judgment entered against FedEx Express. ATA Airlines requested the Seventh Circuit to rehear oral argument on appeal, and in February 2012, the Seventh Circuit denied the request. The time for filing further appeal has passed. We have reversed the $66 million accrual established in the second quarter of 2011.

California Paystub Class Action . A federal court in California ruled in April 2011 that paystubs for certain FedEx Express employees in California did not meet that state’s requirements to reflect pay period begin date, total overtime hours worked and the correct overtime wage rate. The ruling came in a class action lawsuit filed by a former courier seeking damages on behalf of herself and all other FedEx Express employees in California that allegedly received noncompliant paystubs. The court certified the class in June 2011. The court has ruled that FedEx Express is liable to the State of California, and there will be a ruling as to whether FedEx Express is liable to class members who can prove they were injured by the paystub deficiencies. The judge has not yet decided on the amount, if any, of liability to the State of California or to the class, but has wide discretion. Prior to any decision on the amount of liability, we reached an agreement to settle this matter for an immaterial amount in October 2011, subject to approval by the court. The court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement in January 2012. Class notices were mailed in March 2012.

Other. FedEx and its subsidiaries are subject to other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of their business. In the opinion of management, the aggregate liability, if any, with respect to these other actions will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

- 15 -

Table of Contents

(9) Supplemental Cash Flow Information

Cash paid for interest expense and income taxes for the nine-month periods ended February 29, 2012 and February 28, 2011 was as follows (in millions):

(10) Condensed Consolidating Financial Statements

We are required to present condensed consolidating financial information in order for the subsidiary guarantors (other than FedEx Express) of our public debt to continue to be exempt from reporting under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The guarantor subsidiaries, which are wholly owned by FedEx, guarantee $1.0 billion of our debt. The guarantees are full and unconditional and joint and several. Our guarantor subsidiaries were not determined using geographic, service line or other similar criteria, and as a result, the “Guarantor Subsidiaries” and “Non-guarantor Subsidiaries” columns each include portions of our domestic and international operations. Accordingly, this basis of presentation is not intended to present our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows for any purpose other than to comply with the specific requirements for subsidiary guarantor reporting. Condensed consolidating financial statements for our guarantor subsidiaries and non-guarantor subsidiaries are presented in the following tables (in millions):

- 16 -

Table of Contents