|6 Months Ended|
Jul. 29, 2017
On September 15, 2011, MSI was served with a lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court in and for the County of Orange (“Superior Court”) by four former store managers as a class action proceeding on behalf of themselves and certain former and current store managers employed by MSI in California. The lawsuit alleged that MSI improperly classified its store managers as exempt employees and as such failed to pay all wages, overtime and waiting time penalties and failed to provide accurate wage statements. The lawsuit also alleged that the foregoing conduct was in breach of various laws, including California’s unfair competition law. On December 3, 2013, the Superior Court entered an order certifying a class of approximately 200 members. MSI successfully removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and on May 8, 2014, the class was decertified. Three of the four named plaintiffs’ claims were resolved in September 2014 and the remaining one is set for trial on December 12, 2017. The individual claims of 26 former class members remain pending in the Central District of California. In addition, a separate representative action brought on behalf of store managers throughout the state is pending in the California Superior Court, County of San Diego. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. We do not believe the resolution of the lawsuits will have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.
Fair Credit Reporting Claim
On December 11, 2014, MSI was served with a lawsuit, Christina Graham v. Michaels Stores, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by a former employee. The lawsuit is a purported class action, bringing plaintiff’s individual claims, as well as claims on behalf of a putative class of applicants who applied for employment with Michaels through an online application, and on whom a background check for employment was procured. The lawsuit alleges that MSI violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and the New Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide the proper disclosure and obtain the proper authorization to conduct background checks. Since the initial filing, another named plaintiff joined the lawsuit, which was amended in February 2015, Christina Graham and Gary Anderson v. Michaels Stores, Inc., with substantially similar allegations. The plaintiffs seek statutory and punitive damages as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.
Following the filing of the Graham case in New Jersey, five additional purported class action lawsuits with six plaintiffs were filed, Michele Castro and Janice Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Michelle Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court of California for Sonoma County, Raini Burnside v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Sue Gettings v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and Barbara Horton v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. All of the plaintiffs alleged violations of the FCRA. In addition, the Castro, Horton and Janice Bercut lawsuits also alleged violations of California’s unfair competition law. The Burnside, Horton and Gettings lawsuits, as well as the claims by Michele Castro, have been dismissed. The Graham, Janice Bercut and Michelle Bercut lawsuits were transferred for centralized pretrial proceedings to the District of New Jersey. On January 24, 2017, the Company’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing was granted, and the court declined to rule on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims. The dismissal order was stayed for 30 days to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaints. Because there were no amendments filed, two of the three centralized cases were dismissed and subsequently appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the remaining case (Michelle Bercut) was remanded to California Superior Court. The Company intends to defend the remaining lawsuits vigorously. We cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of loss, related to the lawsuits, if any.
Data Security Incident
Five putative class actions were filed against MSI relating to the January 2014 data breach. The plaintiffs generally alleged that MSI failed to secure and safeguard customers’ private information including credit and debit card information, and as such, breached an implied contract and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (and other states’ similar laws). The plaintiffs were seeking damages including declaratory relief, actual damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, remedial action, pre and post judgment interest, and other relief as available. The cases were as follows: Christina Moyer v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 27, 2014; Michael and Jessica Gouwens v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 29, 2014; Nancy Maize and Jessica Gordon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on February 21, 2014; and Daniel Ripes v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on March 14, 2014. These four cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On March 18, 2014, an additional putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 11, 2014 without prejudice to her right to re‑file a complaint. On April 16, 2014, an order was entered consolidating the Illinois actions. On July 14, 2014, the Company’s motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was granted.
On December 2, 2014, Whalen filed a new lawsuit against MSI related to the data breach in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., seeking damages including declaratory relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, injunctive relief, pre and post judgment interest, and other relief as available. The Company filed a motion to dismiss which was granted on December 28, 2015, and judgment was entered in favor of the Company on January 8, 2016. Plaintiff appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and on May 2, 2017, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal and Whalen did not appeal further, thereby concluding the matter.
Consumer Product Safety Commission Claim
On April 21, 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (the “CPSC”), filed a complaint against MSI and Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc. (“MSPC”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The complaint seeks civil penalties for an alleged failure to timely report a potential product safety hazard to the CPSC related to the breakage of certain glass vases. The complaint also alleges the report contained a material misrepresentation and seeks injunctive relief requiring MSI and MSPC to, among other things, establish internal recordkeeping and compliance monitoring systems. On April 4, 2017, the CPSC filed an amended complaint eliminating their misrepresentation claim. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. We do not believe the resolution of the lawsuit will have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.
In addition to the litigation discussed above, we are now, and may be in the future, involved in various other lawsuits, claims and proceedings incident to the ordinary course of business. The results of litigation are inherently unpredictable. Any claims against us, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of management time and result in diversion of significant resources.
For some of the matters disclosed above, as well as other lawsuits involving the Company, we are able to estimate a range of losses in excess of the amounts recorded, if any, in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. As of July 29, 2017, the aggregate estimated loss was approximately $12 million, which includes amounts recorded by the Company.
The entire disclosure for loss and gain contingencies. Describes any existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as of the balance sheet date (or prior to issuance of the financial statements) as to a probable or reasonably possible loss incurred by an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur, and typically discloses the amount of loss recorded or a range of possible loss, or an assertion that no reasonable estimate can be made.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef