|6 Months Ended|
Aug. 02, 2014
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
Winn-Dixie Stores instituted suit in federal court in Florida alleging that the Company sold products in 48 stores in violation of a lease exclusive. In August 2012, the Court denied Winn-Dixie's claim for damages and granted Winn-Dixie’s request for injunctive relief with respect to just one store. Winn-Dixie appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which recently affirmed that Winn-Dixie is not entitled to damages. However, it also held that Winn-Dixie's restriction for 21 of the Company's Florida stores required the Company to restrict its sales of food and "many household supplies" such as "soap, matches and paper napkins" to 500 square feet of floor space for fixtures containing food and many household supplies plus a portion of the surrounding aisle. The 11th circuit remanded the case to the lower court for a new trial to determine the definition of "many household supplies" and how much aisle space should be included. Additional Florida leases may be impacted. The Company has previously restricted these 21 stores to 500 square feet of floor space for food, not including the aisle and not including many household supplies. These stores must now restrict their sales of certain household supplies further, but it is unclear how certain household products will be defined and how much aisle space must be included.
A supermarket filed a lease exclusive case against the Company in Pennsylvania state court. After a trial on liability issues only, a jury determined that the Company violated the supermarket's lease exclusive. The Company strongly disagrees with this verdict. This case is in the process of being settled for an immaterial amount and the expected settlement amount has been accrued.
In 2011, an assistant store manager and an hourly associate filed a collective action against the Company alleging they were forced to work off the clock in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law. A federal judge in Virginia ruled that all claims made on behalf of assistant store managers under both the FLSA and state law should be dismissed. The court, however, certified an opt-in collective action under the FLSA on behalf of hourly sales associates. Approximately 4,300 plaintiffs remain in the case. In March 2014, the court denied the Company's motion to decertify the collective action and the case is now continuing.
In 2012, a former assistant store manager, on behalf of himself and those alleged to be similarly situated, filed a putative class action in a California state court, alleging the Company failed to provide rest breaks to assistant store managers. The alleged time period is July 13, 2008 to the present. Discovery is ongoing. The class has been certified and the case is proceeding to the liability phase.
In 2013, a former assistant store manager on behalf of himself and others alleged to be similarly aggrieved filed a representative Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claim under California law currently pending in federal court in California. The suit alleges that the Company failed to provide uninterrupted meal periods and rest breaks; failed to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages; failed to maintain accurate time records and wage statements; and failed to pay wages due upon termination of employment. Discovery has not commenced. A trial date has been set for October 26, 2015.
In May 2014, a former assistant store manager filed a putative class action in a California state court for alleged failure to provide meal periods, overtime, timely payment of wages during employment and upon termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, as well as for alleged failure to indemnify employees for business expenses in violation of California labor laws. This matter is in early stages of litigation. Discovery has not commenced and no trial date has been set.
In September 2013, district attorneys in California initiated an investigation of whether the Company properly disposed of certain damaged retail products under Federal and California state environmental law, primarily the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.
In May 2014, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") began a staff investigation of circumstances related to 15 Letters of Advice that the Company received from the CPSC from 2009 to 2013. The outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.
In July and August 2014, shareholders of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. (“Family Dollar”) filed two class actions in Delaware chancery court against Family Dollar’s CEO and board members alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Dollar Tree and Family Dollar were also named as defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting the other defendants. The claimed breach derives from the execution of the merger agreement dated July 27, 2014, between Dollar Tree and Family Dollar, which is alleged to offer unfair and inadequate consideration for Family Dollar stock. The class actions, among other things, seek to prevent the merger, obtain higher merger consideration or seek monetary damages.
The Company will vigorously defend itself in these matters. The Company does not believe that any of these matters will, individually or in the aggregate, have a material effect on its business or financial condition. The Company cannot give assurance, however, that one or more of these lawsuits will not have a material effect on its results of operations for the period in which they are resolved. Based on the information available to the Company, including the amount of time remaining before trial, the results of discovery and the judgment of internal and external counsel, the Company is unable to express an opinion as to the outcome of these matters and cannot estimate a potential range of loss except as specified above.
A supermarket filed a lease exclusive case and a companion unfair competition case against the Company in a Pennsylvania state court. These two cases have settled for immaterial amounts which have been accrued.
In 2012, two former store managers, under California's Labor Code and PAGA, instituted suit in the federal court in California on behalf of themselves and others alleged to be similarly aggrieved in the state of California, alleging they were misclassified by the Company as exempt employees. The Company settled with one plaintiff for an immaterial amount. The Company prevailed at trial in November 2013 with the other plaintiff. A final Order has been entered in favor of the Company and the Plaintiff waived his right to appeal.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef