affected by foreign trade issues (including pandemic-related delays, import tariffs and other trade restrictions with China), our sales and profitability may suffer.

Failure to identify and develop relationships with a sufficient number of qualified suppliers could affect our ability to obtain products that meet our high quality standards.

We purchase flooring directly from mills located around the world. We believe that these direct supplier relationships are important to our business. In order to retain the competitive advantage that we believe results from these relationships, we need to continue to identify, develop and maintain relationships with qualified suppliers that can satisfy our high standards for quality and our requirements for the delivery of hard-surface materials in a timely and efficient manner. We expect the need to develop new relationships to be particularly important as we seek to expand our operations, enhance our product offerings, and expand our product assortment and geographic source of origin in the future.future and to mitigate reliance on existing key relationships. Any inability to do so could reduce our competitiveness, slow our plans for further expansion and cause our net sales and operating results to deteriorate.

We rely on a concentrated number of suppliers for a significant portion of our supply needs. We generally do not have long-term contracts with our suppliers. In the future, our suppliers may be unable to supply us, or supply us on acceptable terms, due to various factors, which could include political instability in the supplier’s country, insufficient production capacity, product line failures, collusion, a supplier’s financial instability, inability or refusal to comply with applicable laws, trade restrictions, tariffs or our standards, duties, insufficient transport capacity and other factors beyond our control. In these circumstances, we could experience deterioration in our net sales and operating results.

The failureCompany and third-party suppliers on whom we rely source a significant portion of the merchandise we sell from Asia, which exposes us to the risk of supply chain disruptions.

Beginning in 2020, the United States Government took significant steps to address the forced labor concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China ("Xinjiang Region"), including withhold release orders (“WROs") issued by United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). The WROs allow CBP to detain and deny entry of imports suspected of containing raw materials from Xinjiang, regardless of the origin of the finished products. This affected global supply chains, including those industries whose products are reliant upon polysilicon, tomatoes and cotton. In June 2022, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (“UFLPA”) went into effect, which presumes goods produced in the Xinjiang Region, or with labor linked to specified Chinese government-sponsored labor programs, were produced using forced labor and prohibits importation of such goods into the United States absent clear and convincing evidence proving otherwise. In February 2023, CBP expanded its enforcement focus beyond the high priority sectors identified in the UFLPLA (i.e., cotton, tomatoes and polysilicon) to include additional sectors including aluminum products and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products.

In February 2023, the Company began to receive detention notices from CBP related to flooring products that contain PVC. The Company is working with its affected vendors to provide the requested documentation to CBP to show that the affected products do not contain any inputs from the Xinjiang Region, in compliance with the Company’s Standards for Vendor Partner Conduct and in compliance with certifications the Company has required of vendors related to the UFLPA. While the Company works to provide the requested documentation to CBP, we will incur costs related to storage, transportation and extra handling. The Company also expects this process to adversely impact our ability to obtain adequate inventory in the vinyl product category on a timely basis, which may result in lost sales, increased costs and an overall decrease in our profits. We are working to mitigate the impact of these customs delays by recommending to customers alternative products in our current assortment and leveraging our sourcing capabilities to look at alternative flooring categories and sourcing geographies. We cannot predict when, or the extent to which, CBP will release detained products or whether CBP will continue to issue new detention notices for additional vendors or products.

Failure of our suppliers to comply with applicable laws, use ethical practices, and meet our quality standards could result in our suspending purchasing from them, negatively impacting net sales, and could expose us to reputational and legal risks.

While our suppliers agree to operate in compliance with applicable laws and regulations and our vendor code of conduct, we do not control our suppliers. Accordingly, despite our continued investment in compliance and quality control, we cannot guarantee that

13

Table of Contents

they comply with such laws and regulations or operate in a legal, ethical and responsible manner. While we monitor our suppliers’ adherence to our compliance and quality standards, there is no guarantee that we will be able to identify non-compliance.non-compliance, and it may be costly and complex to comply. Moreover, the failure of our suppliers to adhere to applicable legal requirements and the quality standards that we set for our products could lead to government investigations, litigation, write-offs and recalls, any of which could damage our reputation and our brands, increase our costs, and otherwise hurt our business.  Additionally, our ability to travel and monitor suppliers due to the Coronavirus could cause delays in bringing product to market.

Product liability claims could adversely affect our reputation, which could adversely affect our net sales and profitability.

We have faced and continue to face the risk of exposure to product liability claims in the event that the use of our products is alleged to have resulted in economic loss, personal injury, property damage, or violated environmental or other laws. In the event that any of our products proves to be defective or otherwise in violation of applicable laws, we may be required to recall or redesign such products. Further, in such instances, we may be subject to legal action. We maintain insurance against some forms of product liability claims, but such coverage may not be available or adequate for the liabilities actually incurred. A successful claim brought against us in excess of available insurance coverage, or any claim or product recall that results in significant adverse publicity against us, may have a material adverse effect on our net sales and operating results.

Our ability to offer hardwood flooring, particularly products made of more exoticcertain species of hardwood, depends on the continued availability of sufficient suitable hardwood at reasonable cost.

Our business strategy depends on offering a wide assortment of hardwood flooring to our customers. We sell flooring made from species ranging from domestic maple, oak and pine to imported acacia, cherry, koa, mahogany and teak. Some of these species are scarce,difficult to source, and we cannot be assured of their continued availability. Our ability to obtain an adequate volume and quality of hard-to-find species depends on our suppliers’ ability to furnish those species, which, in

turn, could be affected by many things including events such as forest fires, insect infestation, tree diseases, prolonged drought and other adverse weather and climate conditions. Government regulations relating to forest management practices also affect our suppliers’ ability to harvest or export timber, and changes to regulations and forest management policies, or the implementation of new laws or regulations, could impede their ability to do so. If our suppliers cannot deliver sufficient hardwood and we cannot find replacement suppliers, our net sales and operating results may be negatively impacted.

The cost of the various species of hardwood that are used in our products is important to our profitability. Hardwood lumber costs fluctuate as a result of a number of factors including changes in domestic and international supply and demand, labor costs, competition, market speculation, product availability, environmental restrictions, government regulation and trade policies, duties, weather conditions, processing and freight costs, and delivery delays and disruptions. We generally do not have long-term supply contracts or guaranteed purchase amounts. As a result, we may not be able to anticipate or react to changing hardwood costs by adjusting our purchasing practices, and we may not always be able to increase the selling prices of our products in response to increases in supply costs. If we cannot address changing hardwood costs appropriately, it could cause our operating results to deteriorate.

Risks Relating to Our Competitive Positioning

Ineffectiveness of our advertising strategy or inability to build sufficient awareness of the LL Flooring brand could result in reduced customer traffic, thereby impacting net sales and profitability.

Historically, we have used extensive advertising to encourage customers to drive to our stores, which were, at times, located some distance from population centers in areas that have lower rents than traditional retail locations. Initially, a significant portion of our advertising was directed only to consumers, whose needs with respect to their flooring purchases vary from Pros such as flooring installers, remodelers, and small to medium home builders. As our brand and marketing strategies continue to evolve, we have broadened the content of our advertising to increase the awareness of our great value, superior service and broad selection of high-quality, hard-surface flooring products. We largely completed the physical rebranding of our stores in 2022, however, consumer awareness of our brand transformation from Lumber Liquidators to LL Flooring is taking longer than expected. If our value proposition does not resonate with customers, we may not achieve desired return on investment resulting in declines in our net sales and operating results both in-store and through our digital platform.

Competition could cause price declines, decrease demand for our products and decrease our market share.

We operate in the hard-surface flooring industry, which is highly fragmented and competitive. We face significant competition from national and regional home improvement chains, national and regional specialty flooring chains, Internet-based companies and privately owned single-site enterprises. We compete on the basis of price, customer service, store location and the range, quality and availability of the hard-surface flooring that we offer our customers. If our positioning with regard to one or more of these factors should erode, deteriorate, fail to resonate with consumers or misalign with demand or expectations, our business and results may be negatively impacted.

14

Table of Contents

Our competitive position is also influenced by the availability, quality and cost of merchandise, labor costs, distribution and sales efficiencies and our productivity compared to that of our competitors. Further, as we expand into new and unfamiliar markets, we may face different competitive environments than in the past. Likewise, as we continue to enhance and develop our product offerings, we may experience new competitive conditions.

Some of our competitors are larger organizations, have existed longer, are more diversified in the products they offer and have a more established market presence with substantially greater financial, marketing, personnel and other resources than we have. In addition, our competitors may forecast market developments more accurately than we do, develop products that are superior to ours, produce similar products at a lower cost or adapt more quickly to new technologies or evolving customer requirements than we do. Intense competitive pressures from one or more of our competitors could cause price declines, decrease demand for our products and decrease our market share.

Hard-surface flooring may become less popular as compared to other types of floor coverings in the future. For example, our products are made using various hardwood species, and concern over the environmental impact of tree harvesting could shift consumer preferences towards synthetic or inorganic flooring. In addition, hardwood flooring competes against carpet, vinyl sheet, vinyl tile, ceramic tile, natural stone and other types of floor coverings. If consumer preferences shift toward types of floor coverings that we do not sell, we may experience decreased demand for our products.

All of these competitive factors may harm us and reduce our net sales and operating results.

Risks Related to Economic Factors and Our Access to Capital

Cyclicality in the home flooring industry, coupled with our lack of diversity in our linesline of business, could cause volatility and risk to our business.

The hard-surface flooring industry is highly dependent on the remodeling of existing homes and new home construction. Remodeling and new home construction are cyclical and depend on a number of factors which are beyond our control, including interest and inflation rates, tax policy, real estate prices, employment levels, consumer confidence, credit availability, demographic trends, weather conditions, natural disasters and general economic conditions.

In the event of a decrease in discretionary spending, home remodeling activity or new home construction, any of which could be due to slower growth or recession, increasing interest rates, increasing unemployment or inflation, demand for our products, including hard-surface flooring, could be impacted negatively and our business and operating results could be harmed.

The inability to access our Revolving Credit Facility or other sources of capital, could cause our financial position, liquidity, and results of operations to suffer.

We have relied on and expect to continue to rely on a bank credit agreement to fund our seasonal needs for working capital. During 2019, we entered into an amended and restated credit agreementInformation with respect to increase the amounts available under thisour Revolving Credit Facility and we may needbe found in Note 4, “Credit Agreement”, to access additional sourcesthe consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of capital to satisfy our liquidity needs.Part II, which is incorporated herein by reference. Our access to the Revolving Credit Facility depends on our ability to meet the conditions for borrowing, including that all representations are true and correct at the time of the borrowing. Our failure to meet these requirements or obtain additional or alternative sources of capital could impact:

Risks Related to Our Information Technology

If our management information systems, including our websitedigital platform or our callcustomer contact center, experience disruptions, it could disrupt our business and reduce our net sales.

We depend on our management information systems to integrate the activities of our stores, websitedigital platform and callcustomer contact center, to process orders, make outgoing calls to customers, to respond to customer inquiries, to manage inventory, to purchase merchandise and to sell and ship goods on a timely basis. We may experience operational problems with our information systems as a result of system failures, viruses, computer “hackers” or other causes. We may incur significant expenses in order to repair any such operational problems. Any significant disruption or slowdown of our systems could cause information, including data related to customer orders, to be lost or delayed, which could result in delays in the delivery of products to our stores and customers or lost sales. For example, as we previously disclosed in August 2019, we experienced a malicious network security incident during that year for approximately a week that prevented access to several of our information technology systems and data within our networks. Based on the nature of the network security incident, the impact on our information technology systems and the results of the forensic IT

15

Table of Contents

analysis, we do not believe confidential customer, employee or company data was lost or disclosed. Moreover, our entire corporate network, including our telephone lines, is on an Internet-based network, which is vulnerable to certain risks and uncertainties, including changes in the required technology interfaces, websitedigital platform downtime and other technical failures, security breaches and customer privacy concerns. Accordingly, if our network is disrupted or if we cannot successfully maintain our websitedigital platform and callcustomer contact center in good working order, we may experience delayed communications within our operations and between our customers and ourselves and may not be able to communicate at all via our network, including via telephones connected to our network.network, which may result in lost sales, reputational harm, or impacts to operating results.

In addition, we are currently making, and expect to continue to make, investments in our management information systems, infrastructure and personnel, in certain cases with the assistance of strategic partners and other third-party service providers. These investments involve replacing existing systems, some of which are older, legacy systems that are less flexible and efficient, with successor systems; outsourcing certain technology and business processes to third-party service providers; making changes to existing systems, including the migration of applications to the cloud; maintaining or enhancing legacy systems that are not currently being replaced; or designing or cost-effectively acquiring new systems with new functionality. These efforts can result in significant potential risks, including failure of the systems to operate as designed, potential loss or corruption of data, changes in security processes and internal controls, cost overruns, implementation delays or errors, disruption of operations, and the potential inability to meet business and reporting requirements. Any system implementation and transition difficulty may result in operational challenges, security failures, reputational harm, and increased costs that could adversely affect our business operations and results of operations.

We may incur costs and losses resulting from security risks we face in connection with our electronic processing, transmission and storage of confidential customer information.

We accept electronic payment cards for payment in our stores and through our callcustomer contact center. In addition, our online operations depend upon the secure transmission of confidential information over public networks, including information permitting cashless payments. As a result, we may become subject to claims for purportedly fraudulent transactions arising out of the actual or alleged theft of credit or debit card information, and we may also be subject to lawsuits or other proceedings relating to these types of incidents. Further, a compromise of our security systems that results in our customers’ personal information being obtained by unauthorized persons could adversely affect our reputation with our customers and others, as well as our operations, results of operations and financial condition, and could result in litigation against us or the imposition of penalties. A security breach could also require that we expend significant additional resources related to the security of information systems and could result in a disruption of our operations, particularly our online sales operations.

Additionally, privacy and information security laws and regulations change, and compliance with them may result in cost increases due to necessary systems changes and the development of new administrative processes. If we fail to comply with these laws and regulations or experience a data security breach, our reputation could be damaged, possibly resulting in lost future business, and we could be subjected to additional legal risk as a result of non-compliance.

Failure to maintain satisfactory compliance with certain privacy and data protections laws and regulations may subject us to substantial negative financial consequences and civil or criminal penalties.

Complex local, state, national, foreign and international laws and regulations apply to the collection, use, retention, protection, disclosure, transfer and other processing of personal data. These privacy and data protection laws and regulations are quickly evolving, with new or modified laws and regulations proposed and implemented frequently and existing laws and regulations subject to new or different interpretations and enforcement. For example, California enacted legislation, the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”). The CCPA requires, among other things, covered companies to provide new disclosures to California consumers and allows such consumers new abilities to opt-out of certain sales of personal data. The CCPA also provides for civil penalties for violations as well as a private right of action for data breaches that may increase data breach litigation. Further, the California Privacy Rights Act, which was passed in November 2020 and is fully effective in January 2023, significantly modifies the CCPA. Colorado, Connecticut, Utah and Virginia recently enacted similar data privacy legislation that will also take effect in 2023, and several other states and countries are considering expanding or passing privacy laws in the near term. These modifications and new laws will require us to incur additional costs and expenses in our efforts to comply. Our failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations or other obligations to which we may be subject relating to personal data, or to protect personal data from unauthorized access, use or other processing, could result in enforcement actions and regulatory investigations against us, claims for damages by customers and other affected individuals, fines, damage to our brand reputation, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our operations, financial performance and business.

Alternative e-commerce and online shopping offerings may erode our customer base and adversely affect our business.

Our long-term future depends heavily upon the general public’s willingness to use our stores as a means to purchase goods. In recent years, e-commerce has become more widely accepted as a means of purchasing consumer goods and services, which could adversely impact customer traffic in our stores. Additionally, certain of our competitors offer alternative e-commerce and online shopping. If consumers use alternative e-commerce and online shopping offerings to conduct business as opposed to our store locations, it could materially adversely impact our net sales and operating results.

16

Risks Relating to Our Competitive Positioning

A tarnished brand or ineffectiveness of our advertising strategy could result in reduced customer traffic, thereby impacting net sales and profitability.

We believe that our growth thus far was achieved in part through our successful investment in local and national advertising. Historically, we have used extensive advertising to encourage customers to drive to our stores, which were generally located some distance from population centers in areas that have lower rents than traditional retail locations. Further, a significant portion of our advertising was directed at the DIY and DIFM customers. While our brand and marketing strategies continue to evolve, we have broadened the content of our advertising to increase the awareness of our great value, superior service and broad selection of high-quality, hard-surface flooring products. If there is are negative perceptions about the evolution of our brand strategies, our advertisements fail to draw customers in the future, or if the cost of advertising or other marketing materials increases significantly, we could experience declines in our net sales and operating results.

Competition could cause price declines, decrease demand for our products and decrease our market share.

We operate in the hard-surface flooring industry, which is highly fragmented and competitive.  We face significant competition from national and regional home improvement chains, national and regional specialty flooring chains, Internet-based companies and privately owned single-site enterprises.  We compete on the basis of price, customer service, store location and the range, quality and availability of the hard-surface flooring that we offer our customers.  If our positioning with regard to one or more of these factors should erode, deteriorate, fail to resonate with consumers or misalign with demand or expectations, our business and results may be negatively impacted.

Our competitive position is also influenced by the availability, quality and cost of merchandise, labor costs, distribution and sales efficiencies and our productivity compared to that of our competitors. Further, as we expand into new and unfamiliar markets, we may face different competitive environments than in the past. Likewise, as we continue to enhance and develop our product offerings, we may experience new competitive conditions.

Some of our competitors are larger organizations, have existed longer, are more diversified in the products they offer and have a more established market presence with substantially greater financial, marketing, personnel and other resources than we have. In addition, our competitors may forecast market developments more accurately than we do, develop products that are superior to ours, produce similar products at a lower cost or adapt more quickly to new technologies or evolving customer requirements than we do. Intense competitive pressures from one or more of our competitors could cause price declines, decrease demand for our products and decrease our market share.

Hard-surface flooring may become less popular as compared to other types of floor coverings in the future.  For example, our products are made using various hardwood species, including rare exotic hardwood species, and concern over the environmental impact of tree harvesting could shift consumer preferences towards synthetic or inorganic flooring.  In addition, hardwood flooring competes against carpet, vinyl sheet, vinyl tile, ceramic tile, natural stone and other types of floor coverings.  If consumer preferences shift toward types of floor coverings that we do not sell, we may experience decreased demand for our products.

All of these competitive factors may harm us and reduce our net sales and operating results.

Risks Related to Accounting Standards and Internal Controls 

Changes in accounting standards, subjective assumptions, estimates and judgments by management related to complex accounting matters, and failures in internal control could significantly affect our financial results.

Generally accepted accounting principles and related accounting pronouncements, implementation guidelines and interpretations with regard to a wide range of matters that are relevant to our business, including but not limited to, consolidation, revenue recognition, stock-based compensation, lease accounting, sales returns reserves, inventories, self-insurance, income taxes, deferred taxes, valuation allowances, unclaimed property laws and litigation, are highly

complex and involve many subjective assumptions, estimates and judgments by our management. Changes in these rules or their interpretation or changes in underlying assumptions, estimates or judgments by our management could significantly change our reported or expected financial performance, which may have a material effect on our results of operation.

Failure to maintain effective systems of internal and disclosure control could have a material adverse effect on our results of operation and financial condition.

Effective internal and disclosure controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and effectively prevent fraud, and to operate successfully as a public company. If we cannot provide reliable financial reports or prevent fraud, our reputation and operating results would be harmed. As part of our ongoing monitoring of internal control, we may discover material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control that require remediation.

We have in the past discovered, and may in the future discover, areas of internal controls that need improvement, and we continue to work to remediate and improve our internal controls. We cannot be certain that these measures will ensure that we implement and maintain adequate controls over our financial processes and reporting in the future. Any failure to maintain effective controls or to timely implement any necessary improvement of our internal and disclosure controls could, among other things, result in losses from fraud or error, harm our reputation, or cause investors to lose confidence in the reported financial information, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operation and financial condition.

Risks Relating to Our Common Stock

Our common stock price may be volatile and all or part of any investment in our common stock may be lost.

The market price of our common stock could fluctuate significantly based on various factors, including, but not limited to:

In addition, the stock market may experience significant price and volume fluctuations. These fluctuations may be unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies but may cause declines in the market price of our common stock. The price of our common stock could fluctuate based upon factors that have little or nothing to do with us or our performance.

Our quarterly operating results may fluctuate significantly and could fall below the expectations of research analysts and investors due to various factors.

Research analysts and investors develop expectations on how we may perform using a variety of metrics, including, but not limited to, sales, comparable store sales and gross profit. However, in any given quarter, actual performance may vary from these expectations, causing significant fluctuations in our stock price.

Our anti-takeover defense provisions may cause our common stock to trade at market prices lower than it might absent such provisions.

Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain provisions that may make it more difficult or expensive for a third party to acquire control of us without the approval of our board of directors. These provisions include a staggered board, the availability of “blank check” preferred stock, provisions restricting stockholders from calling a special meeting of stockholders or from taking action by written consent and provisions that set forth advance notice procedures for stockholders’ nominations of directors and proposals of topics for consideration at meetings of stockholders. Our certificate of incorporation also provides that Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which relates to business combinations with interested stockholders, applies to us. These provisions may delay, prevent or deter a merger, or other transaction that might otherwise result in our stockholders receiving a premium over the market price for their common stock. In addition, these provisions may cause our common stock to trade at a market price lower than it might absent such provisions.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

17

Table of Contents

Item 2. Properties.

As of February 20, 2020,24, 2023, we operated 419442 stores located in 47 states, and Canada, with no new store openings or closings since December 31, 2019. In addition to our eight stores in Ontario, Canada, the2022. The table below sets forth the locations (alphabetically by state) of our 411  United States442 stores in operation as of February 20, 2020.

24, 2023.

We lease all of our stores as well as our corporate headquarters, at our new locationwhich is located in Richmond, Virginia. We relocated to the newThe corporate headquarters location during the fourth quarter of 2019.  The new headquarters location is an existing building of approximately 53,000 square feet. We currently lease space near the new headquarters location as a satellite office for various administrative functions and expect to continue that lease or lease similar property in Richmond, Virginia for our call center operations.functions.

In addition, we own a one million square foot distribution center on approximately 100 acres of land in Henrico County, Virginia.Virginia, near Richmond. We lease a 504,016 square foot facility in Pomona, California, which, along with our facility in Virginia, serve as our primary distribution facilities.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

Litigation Relating to Bamboo Flooring

On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Morning Star bamboo flooring that the Company sells is

defective (the “Gold Litigation”). Plaintiffs narrowed the complaint to the Company’s Morning Star Strand Bamboo flooring (the “Strand Bamboo Product”) sold to residents of California, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and West Virginia for personal, family or household use. The Gold Litigation alleges that the Company engaged in deceptive trade practices in conjunction with the sale of the Strand Bamboo Products. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Company’s actions violate the law and that it is financially responsible for notifying all purported class members, injunctive relief requiring the Company to replace and/or repair all of the Strand Bamboo Product installed in structures owned by the purported class members and a declaration that the Company must disgorge, for the benefit of the purported classes, all or part of the profits received from the sale of the allegedly defective Strand Bamboo Product and/or to make full restitution to the plaintiffs and the purported class members.  

On September 30, 2019, the parties finalized a settlement agreement that is consistent with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding previously disclosed by the Company, which would resolve the Gold Litigation on a nationwide basis. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company will contribute $14 million in cash (the “Gold Cash Payment”) and provide $14 million in store-credit vouchers, with a potential additional $2 million in store-credit vouchers based on having a claim’s percentage of more than 7%, for an aggregate settlement of up to $30 million. The settlement agreement makes clear that the settlement does not constitute or include an admission by the Company of any fault or liability and the Company does not admit any fault, wrongdoing or liability. On December 18, 2019, the court issued an order that, among other things, granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Following the preliminary approval, and pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, in December 2019, the Company paid $1 million for settlement administrative costs, which is part of the Gold Cash Payment, to the plaintiff’s settlement escrow account. A Final Approval and Settlement Hearing is currently scheduled for September 24, 2020. The settlement agreement is subject to certain contingencies, including court approval. There can be no assurance that a settlement will be finalized and approved by the court at the Final Approval and Settlement Hearing or as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation. If a final, court approved settlement is not reached, the Company will defend the matter vigorously and believes there are meritorious defenses and legal standards that must be met for, among other things, success on the merits. The Company has notified its insurance carriers and continues to pursue coverage, but the insurers to date have denied coverage. As the insurance claim is still pending, the Company has not recognized any insurance recovery related to the Gold Litigation.

The Company recognized a charge to earnings of $28 million within selling, general and administrative expense during the fourth quarter of 2018 as its loss became probable and estimable with the offset in the caption “Accrual for Legal Matters and Settlements Current” on its Consolidated Balance Sheet related to this settlement as of December 31, 2018.  If the settlement agreement is not approved by the court or the Company incurs additional lossesInformation with respect to the Bamboo Flooring Litigation (as defined below), the actual losses thatthis item may result from these actions may exceed this amount. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company’s results of operations, financial conditionbe found in Note 10, “Commitments and liquidity.

In addition, there are a number of individual claims and lawsuits alleging damages involving Strand Bamboo Product (the “Bamboo Flooring Litigation”). While the Company believes that a loss associated with the Bamboo Flooring Litigation is reasonably possible, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible loss. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and liquidity. The Company disputes the claims in the Bamboo Flooring Litigation and intends to defend such matters vigorously.

Litigation Relating to Chinese Laminates

Formaldehyde-Abrasion MDLs

Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous purported class action cases were filed in various United States federal district courts and state courts involving claims of excessive formaldehyde emissions from the Company’s Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring products. The purported classes consisted of all United States consumers that purchased the relevant products during certain time periods. Plaintiffs in these cases challenged the Company’s labeling of its products as compliant with the California Air Resources Board Regulation and alleged claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation and violation of various state consumer protection statutes.

The plaintiffs sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief and unquantified damages, including restitution and actual, compensatory, consequential and, in certain cases, punitive damages, as well as interest, costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by the plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with the alleged claims. The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “MDL Panel”) transferred and consolidated the federal casesContingencies”, to the United States District Court for the Eastern Districtconsolidated financial statements in Item 8 of Virginia (the “Virginia Court”). The consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation (the “Formaldehyde MDL”).

Beginning on or about May 20, 2015, multiple class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and other district courts located in the place of residence of each non-California plaintiffs consisting of United States consumers who purchased the Company’s Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring products challenging certain representations about the durability and abrasion class ratings of such products. These plaintiffs asserted claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty and violation of various state consumer protection statutes. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in these cases; however, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, they did seek an order (i) certifying the action as a class action, (ii) adopting the plaintiffs’ class definitions and finding that the plaintiffs are their proper representatives, (iii) appointing their counsel as class counsel, (iv) granting injunctive relief to prohibit the Company from continuing to advertise and/or sell laminate flooring products with false abrasion class ratings, (v) providing restitution of all monies the Company received from the plaintiffs and class members and (vi) providing damages (actual, compensatory and consequential), as well as punitive damages. On October 3, 2016, the MDL Panel transferred and consolidated the abrasion class actions to the Virginia Court. The consolidated case is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Laminate Flooring Durability Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (the “Abrasion MDL”).

On March 15, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement to jointly settle the Formaldehyde MDL and the Abrasion MDL. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to fund $22 million (the “MDL Cash Payment”) and provide $14 million in store-credit vouchers for an aggregate settlement amount of $36 million to settle claims brought on behalf of purchasers of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by the Company between January 1, 2009 and May 31, 2015. The $36 million aggregate settlement amount was accrued in 2017. On June 16, 2018, the Virginia Court issued an order that, among other things, granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Following the preliminary approval, and pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, in June 2018, the Company paid $0.5 million for settlement administration costs,Part II, which is part of the MDL Cash Payment, to the plaintiffs’ settlement escrow account. Subsequent to the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing held on October 3, 2018, the Court approved the settlement on October 9, 2018 and, as a result, the Company paid $21.5 million in cash into the plaintiffs’ settlement escrow account. 

On November 8, 2018, an individual filed a Notice of Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (the “Appeals Court”) challenging the settlement. On December 14, 2018, another individual filed a Notice of Appeal in the Appeals Court. Subsequently, the Appeals Court consolidated both appeals and briefing is now complete. Vouchers, which generally have a three-year life, will be distributedincorporated herein by the administrator upon order of the Virginia Court. At December 31, 2019, the Company’s obligations related to Formaldehyde MDL and Abrasion MDL consisted of a short-term payable of $36 million with $14 million expected to be satisfied by the issuance of vouchers. If the appeals were to result in the settlement being set aside, the Company would receive $21.5 million back from the escrow agent. Accordingly, the Company has accounted for the payment of $21.5 million as a deposit in the caption “Deposit for Legal Settlements” on it Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company has no liability accrued related to the appeals.reference.

In addition to those purchasers who elected to opt out of the above settlement (the “Opt Outs”), there are a number of individual claims and lawsuits alleging personal injuries, breach of warranty claims or violation of state consumer protection statutes that remain pending (collectively, the “Related Laminate Matters”). Certain of these Related Laminate Matters were settled in 2019 and 2018. The Company recognized charges to earnings of $0.4 million and $2.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, within selling, general and administrative expenses for these Related Laminate Matters.  As of December 31, 2019, the remaining accrual related to these matters was $0.1 million, which has been included in the caption “Accrual for Legal Matters and Settlements Current” on the condensed consolidated balance sheet.  While the Company believes that a further loss associated with

the Opt Outs and Related Laminate Matters is possible, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible loss beyond what has been provided. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.

Canadian Litigation

On or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele (“Steele”) filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior Court of Justice against the Company. In the complaint, Steele’s allegations include strict liability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud by concealment, civil negligence, negligent misrepresentation and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing relating to the Company’s Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring products. Steele did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint, but seeks compensatory damages, punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages, statutory remedies, attorneys’ fees and costs. While the Company believes that a further loss associated with the Steele litigation is possible, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible loss.

Employment Cases

Mason Lawsuit

In August  2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and Osagie Ehigie filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all current and former store managers, store managers in training, installation sales managers and similarly situated current and former employees (collectively, the “Mason Putative Class Employees”) alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) by classifying the Mason Putative Class Employees as exempt. The alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work. The plaintiffs sought certification of the Mason Putative Class Employees for (i) a collective action covering the period beginning three years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the disposition of this action for the Mason Putative Class Employees nationwide in connection with FLSA and (ii) a class action covering the period beginning six years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the disposition of this action for members of the Mason Putative Class Employees who currently are or were employed in New York in connection with NYLL. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified amounts for unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other damages.

In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting conditional certification for all store managers and store managers in training who worked within the federal statute of limitations period.  In May 2019, the magistrate judge granted plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification.  The litigation is in the discovery stage, which currently closes in May 2020.

The Company disputes the Mason Putative Class Employees’ claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and therefore no accrual has been made related to this. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.

Kramer Lawsuit

In November 2017, Robert J. Kramer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated (collectively, the “Kramer Plaintiffs”) filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento on behalf of all current and former store managers, all others with similar job functions and/or titles and all current and former employees classified as non-exempt or incorrectly classified as exempt and who worked for the Company in the State of California (collectively, the “CSM Employees”) alleging violation of the California Labor Code including, among other items, failure to pay wages and overtime and engaging in unfair business practices (the “Kramer matter”).

The Kramer Plaintiffs seek certification of the CSM Employees for a class action covering the prior four-year period prior to the filing of the complaint through the disposition of this action for the CSM Employees who currently are or were employed in California (the “California SM Class”). On or about February 19, 2019, the Kramer Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint adding a claim for penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act for the same substantive alleged violations asserted in the Complaint. The Kramer Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, the Kramer Plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts for unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other damages.

On September 9, 2019, the Company entered into an agreement to settle the Kramer matter, consistent with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding previously disclosed by the Company.  Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company will pay $4.75 million to settle the claims asserted in the Kramermatter (or which could have been asserted in the Kramermatter) on behalf of all current and/or former store managers and store managers in training employed by the Company at any time between November 17, 2013 and September 19, 2019.  The settlement agreement was preliminarily approved by the court on September 19, 2019, and granted final approval on January 17, 2020. The Company recognized a net charge to earnings of approximately $4.75 million within selling general and administrative expense in its second quarter 2019 financial statements.

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Investigation

In October 2010, a conglomeration of domestic manufacturers of multilayered wood flooring (“Petitioners”) filed a petition seeking the imposition of antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duties (“CVD”) with the United States Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) against imports of multilayered wood flooring from China. This ruling applies to companies importing multilayered wood flooring from Chinese suppliers subject to the AD and CVD orders. The Company’s multilayered wood flooring imports from China accounted for approximately 6% and 7% of its flooring purchases in 2019 and 2018, respectively. The Company’s consistent view through the course of this matter has been, and remains, that its imports are neither dumped nor subsidized.  

As part of its processes in these proceedings, following the original investigation, the DOC conducts annual administrative reviews of the CVD and AD rates. In such cases, the DOC will issue preliminary rates that are not binding and are subject to comment by interested parties. After consideration of the comments received, the DOC will issue final rates for the applicable period, which may lag by a year or more. As rates are adjusted through the administrative reviews, the Company adjusts its payments prospectively based on the final rate. The Company will begin to pay the finalized rates on each applicable future purchase when recognized by United States Customs and Border Protection.

The DOC made its initial determinations in the original investigation regarding CVD and AD rates on April 6, 2011 and May 26, 2011, respectively. On December 8, 2011, orders were issued setting final AD and CVD rates at a maximum of 3.3% and 1.5%, respectively. These rates became effective in the form of additional duty deposits, which the Company has paid, and applied retroactively to the DOC initial determinations.

Following the issuance of these orders, a number of appeals were filed by several parties, including the Company, with the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) challenging, among other things, certain facts and methodologies that may impact the validity of the AD and CVD orders and the applicable rates. The Company participated in appeals of both the AD order and CVD order. On February 15, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated the CIT’s prior decision and remanded with instructions to the DOC to recalculate its AD rate. On remand, the DOC granted a 0% AD rate to eight Chinese suppliers, but did not exclude them permanently from the AD order. Nor did the CIT terminate the AD order. In July 2018, the CIT issued a judgment sustaining the DOC’s calculation of 0% for the eight suppliers, but also excluded three of them from the AD order. Certain Chinese suppliers and the Petitioners have appealed this judgment to the CAFC. The Company is evaluating the impact of the CIT’s judgment on its previously recorded expense related to the AD rates in the original investigation and subsequent annual reviews discussed below. Because of the length of time for finalization of rates as well as appeals, any subsequent

adjustment of CVD and AD rates typically flows through a period different from those in which the inventory was originally purchased and/or sold.

In the first DOC annual review in this matter, AD rates for the period from May 26, 2011 through November 30, 2012, and CVD rates from April 6, 2011 through December 31, 2011, were modified to a maximum of 5.92% and a maximum of 0.83%, respectively, which resulted in an additional payment obligation for the Company, based on best estimates and shipments during the applicable window, of $0.8 million. The Company recorded this as a long-term liability on its accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet and in cost of sales in its second quarter 2015 financial statements. These AD rates were appealed to the CIT by several parties, including the Company. On remand from the CIT, the DOC has reduced the AD rate to a maximum of 0.73%. In June 2018, the CIT sustained the reduced AD rate of a maximum of 0.73% but did remand back to the DOC the issue regarding the calculation of the electricity rate, which, depending on that outcome, may cause a revision to the final AD rate. That remand from the DOC is expected to proceed in the spring of 2020 with the CIT’s lifting of a stay pending the final disposition of the appeal of the original investigation by the CAFC which issued its decision on January 10, 2020. This ruling from the CIT resulted in the Company reversing the $0.8 million accrual and recording a receivable of approximately $1.3 million during the second quarter of 2018.  

The second annual review of the AD and CVD rates was initiated in February 2014. Pursuant to the second annual review, in early July 2015, the DOC finalized the AD rate for the period from December 1, 2012 through November 30, 2013 at a maximum of 13.74% and the CVD rate for the period from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 at a maximum of 0.99%. The Company believes the best estimate of the probable additional amounts owed was $4.1 million for shipments during the applicable time periods, which was recorded as a long-term liability on its accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet and included in cost of sales in its second quarter 2015 financial statements. Beginning in July 2015, the Company began depositing these rates on each applicable purchase. The Company and other parties appealed the AD rates relating to this second annual review to the CIT. In June 2018, the court remanded the case back to the DOC to recalculate several of its adjustments. In its June 2019 remand, the DOC reduced the AD rate to 6.55%. The CIT is expected to rule on the DOC’s remand by early 2020.  If the final ruling remains at 6.55%, the Company’s liability of $4.1 million would decrease by $2.8 million to $1.3 million in the period in which the ruling is finalized.

The third annual review of the AD and CVD rates was initiated in February 2015. The third AD review covered shipments from December 1, 2013 through November 30, 2014. The third CVD review covered shipments from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013. In May 2016, the DOC issued the final CVD rate in the third review, which was a maximum of 1.38%. On July 13, 2016, the DOC set the final AD rate at a maximum of 17.37%. The Company appealed the AD rates to the CIT. In November 2018, the CIT issued an opinion sustaining the DOC’s results, and that decision was appealed to the CAFC by certain plaintiff interveners in January 2019. That CAFC decision is expected to be issued by the fall of 2020.  The Company’s best estimate of the probable additional amounts owed associated with AD and CVD is approximately $5.5 million for shipments during the applicable time periods. During the quarter ended June 30, 2016, the Company recorded this amount in other long-term liabilities in its balance sheet and as a charge to earnings in cost of sales on its statement of operations. After payments during 2019, the remaining liability was $4.7 million as of December 31, 2019, included in the caption “Other Long-Term Liabilities” on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The fourth annual period has been resolved including appeals.

The DOC initiated the fifth annual review of AD and CVD rates in February 2017. The AD review covers shipments from December 1, 2015 through November 30, 2016. The CVD review covers shipments from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. In June 2018, the DOC issued the final CVD rate in the fifth review, which was a maximum of 0.85% (with one company having a maximum rate of 0.11%). In July 2018, the DOC issued the final AD rate in the fifth review, which was a maximum of 0.00% and, the Company recorded a receivable in the amount of $2.6 million in other current assets in its balance sheet. Due to payments during the fourth quarter of 2019, there was no remaining receivable as of December 31, 2019. In connection with the issuance of the final CVD rate, with one company having a maximum rate of 0.11%, the Company recorded a receivable of less than $100 thousand.

The DOC initiated the sixth annual review of AD and CVD rates in February 2018. The AD review covers shipments from December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2017. The CVD review covers shipments from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. In July 2019, the DOC issued the final AD rate in the sixth annual review, which was a maximum of 42.57% (with one company having a maximum rate of 0.00%), and the final CVD rate in the sixth annual review, which was a maximum of 3.2%. With the finalization of the AD rate for the sixth annual review, the Company recorded a net liability of $0.8 million during the third quarter of 2019 with a corresponding reduction in cost of sales.  The Company received payments during 2019 for the vendor with a final rate of 0.00% and the remaining balance of $0.5 million as of December 31, 2019 was included in other current assets on the consolidated balance sheet. The vendors with a final rate of 42.57% are under appeal and the balance of $1.5 million as of December 31, 2019 was included in other long-term liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet. With the finalization of the CVD rate for the sixth annual review, the Company recorded a liability of $0.4 million during 2019 with a corresponding reduction in sales.  After payments during 2019, the remaining balance was approximately $40 thousand as of December 31, 2019.  The Company and other parties have appealed the final AD rate ruling to the CIT, which is expected to issue its decision in the fall of 2020.However there was not a stay placed on this period.

The DOC initiated the seventh annual review of the AD and CVD rates in March 2019.  The AD review covers shipments from December 1, 2017 through November 30, 2018. The CVD review covers shipments from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.  In January 2020, the DOC issued non-binding preliminary results in the sixth annual review for CVD rates and AD rates. The preliminary AD rate was a maximum of 0.00%. The preliminary CVD rate was a maximum of 24.61%. The final CVD and AD rates in the seventh annual review are currently expected to be issued in June 2020. If the preliminary ruling regarding the CVD rate were to be finalized, the Company anticipates it would record a net liability of approximately $2 million. If the preliminary CVD rate were to be finalized, the Company currently expects that it would appeal such ruling.

The DOC is expected to initiate the eighth annual review of AD and CVD rates in February or March of 2020. The AD review will cover shipments from December 1, 2018 through November 30, 2019. The CVD review covers shipments from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018.

Outstanding AD and CVD duties are subject to interest based on the IRS quarterly published rate. The Company has recorded a net $0.6 million of interest expense through the line item Other Expense on the Statement of Operations during the year ended December 31, 2019.

Other Matters

The Company is also, from time to time, subject to claims and disputes arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, while the outcome of any such claims and disputes cannot be predicted with certainty, its ultimate liability in connection with these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or liquidity.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

None.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Market Information

Our common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the trading symbol “LL.” We are authorized to issue up to 35,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.001. Total shares of common stock outstanding aton February 20, 202024, 2023 were 28,724,93129,257,456, and we had sixfive stockholders of record.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

The following table presents our share repurchase activity for the quarter ended December 31, 20192022 (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts):

Table of Contents

1      We repurchased 1,610 In January 2012, the Company’s board of directors adopted an authorization for the repurchase of up to a total of $50.0 million of the Company’s common stock, which it increased by $50.0 million in each of November 2012 and January 2014. In February 2022, the board of directors further increased this authority by an additional $35.3 million for a total authorization to repurchase up to $50.0 million of the Company’s common stock on the open market or in private transactions. In April 2022, the Company resumed its share repurchase program. The Company made cash payments of $7.0 million to repurchase 571,332 shares under the share repurchase authorization during the second quarter of 2022. As of December 31, 2022, there remains $43.0 million outstanding under the share repurchase authorization, which does not have an expiration date.

2 The table above reflects repurchases of 5,750 shares of our common stock, at an average price of $9.08,$8.02, in connection with the net settlement of shares issued as a result of the vesting of restricted shares during the quarter ended December 31, 2019.2022.

2      Our initial stock repurchase program, which authorized the repurchase of up to $50 million in common stock, was authorized by our board of directors and publicly announced on February 22, 2012. Our board of directors subsequently authorized two additional stock repurchase programs, each of which authorized the repurchase of up to an additional $50 million in common stock. These programs were publicly announced on November 15, 2012 and February 19, 2014, respectively, and are currently indefinitely suspended until we are better able to evaluate the long-term customer demand and assess our estimates of operations and cash flow. At December 31, 2019, we had approximately $14.7 million remaining under this authorization.

Dividend Policy

We have never paid any dividends on our common stock and do not expect to pay them in the near future.

Securities Authorized for Issuance Underunder Equity Compensation Plans

See Item 12. “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters” for information regarding securities authorized for issuance under our equity compensation plans.

19

Table of Contents

Performance Graph

The following graph compares the performance of our common stock during the period beginning December 31, 20142017 through December 31, 2019,2022, to that of the total return index for the NYSE Composite, S&P Retail Select Industry Index, and a Custom Peer Group whose members are listed below assuming an investment of $100 on December 31, 2014.2017. Effective December 31, 2022, the Company has elected to transition from a Peer Group to a Published Industry Index, the S&P Retail Select Industry Index. The Company notes the transition to the Published Industry Index allows the Company to capture a more holistic view of consumer discretionary spending at similar size, small cap companies to benchmark specialty retail. In calculating total annual stockholder return, reinvestment of dividends, if any, is assumed. The indices are included for comparative

purpose only. They do not necessarily reflect management’s opinion that such indices are an appropriate measure of the relative performance of our common stock.

1Effective December 31, 2022, LL Flooring has elected to use the S&P Retail Select Industry Index as its Published Industry Index in lieu of the Peer Group utilized in prior years. The Peer Group consists of industry competitors and other retailers of a similar size to the Company. They include: The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe’s Companies, Inc., Floor & DécorDecor Holdings, Inc., Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., The Sherwin-Williams Company, Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., Hibbett Sports, Inc. and Haverty Furniture Companies, Inc.