UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

x	QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended July ~~31, 2010~~30, 2011

¨	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission file number 0-18632

THE WET SEAL, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


Delaware		33-0415940
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

26972 Burbank, Foothill Ranch, CA		92610
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)

(949) 699-3900

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ¨x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act:

Large accelerated filer: ¨

Accelerated filer: x

~~Nonaccelerated~~Non-accelerated filer: ¨

Smaller reporting company: ¨

(Do not check if a smaller

reporting company)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ¨ No x

The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s Class A common stock, par value $0.10 per share, at August ~~27, 2010,~~22, 2011, was ~~101,739,011.~~90,483,881. There were no shares outstanding of the registrant’s Class B common stock, par value $0.10 per share, at August ~~27, 2010.~~22, 2011.

THE WET SEAL, INC.

FORM 10-Q

~~Index~~Table of Contents


PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION			Page

Item 1.	Financial Statements (Unaudited)

	Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited) as of July 30, 2011, January 29, 2011, and July 31, 2010 ~~January 30, 2010, and August 1, 2009~~	~~2-3~~	2

	Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited) for the 13 and 26 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010 ~~and August 1, 2009~~		4

	Condensed Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity and Comprehensive Income (Unaudited) for the 26 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010 ~~and August 1, 2009~~	~~5-6~~	5

	Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (Unaudited) for the 26 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010 ~~and August 1, 2009~~		7

	Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)	~~8-20~~	8

Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	~~21-34~~	22

Item 3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	34	36

Item 4.	Controls and Procedures	~~34-35~~	36

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.	Legal Proceedings	~~35-36~~	37

Item 1A.	Risk Factors	36	37

Item 2.	Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds	36	38

Item 3.	Defaults Upon Senior Securities	36	38

Item 4.	~~Removed and~~ Reserved	36	38

Item 5.	Other Information	36	38

Item 6.	Exhibits	37	38

SIGNATURES		38	39

EXHIBIT ~~31.1~~10.1.1

EXHIBIT ~~31.2~~31.1

EXHIBIT ~~32.1~~31.2

EXHIBIT ~~32.2~~32.1

EXHIBIT 32.2

101.INS XBRL Instance Document
101.SCH XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document
101.CAL XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document
101.DEF XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document
101.LAB XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document
101.PRE XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document

Part I. Financial Information

Item 1.

Financial Statements (Unaudited)

THE WET SEAL, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands, except share data)

(Unaudited)


	July 31, 2010		January 30, 2010			August 1, 2009		July 30, 2011			January 29, 2011			July 31, 2010
ASSETS
CURRENT ASSETS:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	165,516	$	161,693		$	143,987		$	109,566		$	125,362		$	165,516
Short-term investments										38,230			50,690			—
Other receivables		1,381		479			795			2,540			1,941			1,381
Merchandise inventories		39,285		29,159			38,050			43,176			33,336			39,285
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		12,150		10,939			10,829			15,080			12,651			12,150
Deferred tax assets		19,600		19,600			—			19,649			19,649			19,600

Total current assets		237,932		221,870			193,661			228,241			243,629			237,932

EQUIPMENT AND LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS:
Leasehold improvements		112,058		108,958			106,281			120,416			115,712			112,058
Furniture, fixtures and equipment		74,969		66,708			68,570			79,334			75,395			74,969

		187,027		175,666			174,851			199,750			191,107			187,027
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization		(99,998)		(97,603	)		(95,382)			(106,586)			(102,387)			(99,998)

Net equipment and leasehold improvements		87,029		78,063			79,469			93,164			88,720			87,029

OTHER ASSETS:
Deferred tax assets		46,909		51,713			—
Deferred tax assets (Note 1)										27,516			33,255			40,349
Other assets		2,560		2,584			2,247			3,034			2,928			2,560

Total other assets		49,469		54,297			2,247			30,550			36,183			42,909

TOTAL ASSETS	$	374,430	$	354,230		$	275,377		$	351,955		$	368,532		$	367,870

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
CURRENT LIABILITIES:
Accounts payable – merchandise	$	21,970	$	14,588		$	19,760		$	29,287		$	20,455		$	21,970
Accounts payable – other		15,665		9,480			12,434			14,221			11,571			15,665
Income taxes payable		—		47			103			—			60			—
Accrued liabilities		24,561		24,918			24,009			26,248			24,752			24,561
Current portion of deferred rent		2,876		2,735			3,468			3,435			3,338			2,876

Total current liabilities		65,072		51,768			59,774			73,191			60,176			65,072

LONG-TERM LIABILITIES:
Secured convertible notes, including accrued interest of $0, $956 and $853 at July 31, 2010, January 30, 2010, and August 1, 2009, respectively, and net of unamortized discount of $0, $2,083 and $2,425 at July 31, 2010, January 30, 2010, and August 1, 2009, respectively		—		3,540			3,095
Deferred rent		28,988		28,827			28,832			31,800			30,900			28,988
Other long-term liabilities		1,707		1,785			1,727			1,700			1,763			1,707

Total long-term liabilities		30,695		34,152			33,654			33,500			32,663			30,695

Total liabilities		95,767		85,920			93,428			106,691			92,839			95,767

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

THE WET SEAL, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (Continued)

(In thousands, except share data)

(Unaudited)


	July 31, 2010			January 30, 2010			August 1, 2009		July 30, 2011			January 29, 2011			July 31, 2010
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 6)
CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK, $0.01 par value, authorized 2,000,000 shares; no shares issued and outstanding at July 31, 2010, and 1,611 shares issued and outstanding at January 30, 2010, and August 1, 2009, respectively		—			1,611			1,611

STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY:
Common stock, Class A, $0.10 par value, authorized 300,000,000 shares; 111,976,044 shares issued and 101,739,011 outstanding at July 31, 2010; 106,889,150 shares issued and 98,046,279 shares outstanding at January 30, 2010; and 103,773,868 shares issued and 97,090,443 shares outstanding at August 1, 2009		11,198			10,689			10,377
Common stock, Class A, $0.10 par value, authorized 300,000,000 shares; 114,742,482 shares issued and 92,826,224 outstanding at July 30, 2011; 113,736,844 shares issued and 101,603,911 shares outstanding at January 29, 2011; and 111,976,044 shares issued and 101,739,011 shares outstanding at July 31, 2010											11,474			11,374			11,198
Common stock, Class B convertible, $0.10 par value, authorized 10,000,000 shares; no shares issued and outstanding		—			—			—			—			—			—
Paid-in capital (Note 3)		324,594			312,689			304,517
Accumulated deficit (Note 3)		(22,585	)		(27,342	)		(112,640)
Treasury stock, 10,237,033 shares; 8,842,871 shares; and 6,683,425 shares; at cost, at July 31, 2010, January 30, 2010, and August 1, 2009, respectively		(34,957	)		(29,758	)		(22,461)
Paid-in capital											325,710			323,324			324,594
Accumulated deficit (Note 1)											(11,121)			(21,332)			(29,145)
Treasury stock, 21,916,258 shares, 12,132,933 shares, and 10,237,033 shares, at cost, at July 30, 2011, January 29, 2011, and July 31, 2010, respectively											(81,086)			(37,963)			(34,957)
Accumulated other comprehensive income		413			421			545			287			290			413

Total stockholders’ equity		278,663			266,699			180,338			245,264			275,693			272,103

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY	$	374,430		$	354,230		$	275,377		$	351,955		$	368,532		$	367,870

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

THE WET SEAL, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

(Unaudited)


	13 Weeks Ended						26 Weeks Ended						13 Weeks Ended						26 Weeks Ended
	July 31, 2010			August 1, 2009			July 31, 2010			August 1, 2009			July 30, 2011			July 31, 2010			July 30, 2011			July 31, 2010
Net sales	$	131,541		$	136,366		$	269,303		$	268,375		$	148,770		$	131,541		$	304,810		$	269,303
Cost of sales		93,159			97,196			185,798			190,024			102,693			93,159			205,288			185,798

Gross margin		38,382			39,170			83,505			78,351			46,077			38,382			99,522			83,505
Selling, general, and administrative expenses		34,737			34,321			69,801			68,294			41,695			34,737			81,555			69,801
Asset impairment		1,041			1,552			1,131			1,552			1,057			1,041			1,316			1,131

Operating income		2,604			3,297			12,573			8,505			3,325			2,604			16,651			12,573

Interest income		85			132			159			316			66			85			138			159
Interest expense (Note 3)		(25	)		(246	)		(2,992	)		(437	)		(44	)		(25	)		(87	)		(2,992	)

Interest income (expense), net		60			(114	)		(2,833	)		(121	)		22			60			51			(2,833	)

Income before provision for income taxes		2,664			3,183			9,740			8,384			3,347			2,664			16,702			9,740
Provision for income taxes (Note 1)		1,049			80			4,983			252
Provision for income taxes														1,149			1,049			6,491			4,983

Net income	$	1,615		$	3,103		$	4,757		$	8,132		$	2,198		$	1,615		$	10,211		$	4,757

Net income per share, basic	$	0.02		$	0.03		$	0.05		$	0.08		$	0.02		$	0.02		$	0.10		$	0.05

Net income per share, diluted	$	0.02		$	0.03		$	0.05		$	0.08		$	0.02		$	0.02		$	0.10		$	0.05

Weighted-average shares outstanding, basic		100,257,750			95,594,834			98,756,560			95,492,536			95,731,926			100,257,750			97,324,336			98,756,560

Weighted-average shares outstanding, diluted		100,556,634			96,159,261			99,414,245			95,988,664			95,835,044			100,556,634			97,399,349			99,414,245

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

THE WET SEAL, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(In thousands, except share data)

(Unaudited)


	Common Stock						Paid-In Capital			Accumulated Deficit				Treasury Stock				Comprehensive Income			Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income				Total Stockholders’ Equity			Common Stock										Paid-In Capital				Accumulated Deficit				Treasury Stock				Comprehensive Income				Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income				Total Stockholders’ Equity
	Class A			Class B																				Class A							Class B
	Shares	Par Value		Shares	Par Value																			Shares					Par Value				Shares		Par Value
Balance at January 30, 2010	106,889,150	$	10,689	—	$	—	$	312,689				$	(27,342	)		$	(29,758	)					$	421					$	266,699
Balance at January 29, 2011																													113,736,844			$	11,374		—	$	—			$	323,324			$	(21,332	)		$	(37,963	)						$	290			$	275,693
Net income	—		—	—		—		—					4,757				—			$	4,757			—				4,757				—		—		—		—				—				10,211				—			$	10,211				—				10,211
Stock issued pursuant to long-term incentive plans	213,900		21	—		—		(21	)		—				—				—			—				—			830,635				83		—		—		(83	)			—				—				—				—				—
Stock-based compensation - directors and employees (Note 2)	—		—	—		—		619			—				—				—			—				619			—				—		—		—		1,960				—				—				—				—				1,960
Amortization of stock payment in lieu of rent	—		—	—		—		49			—				—				—			—				49			—				—		—		—		31				—				—				—				—				31
Exercise of stock options	64,168		7	—		—		199			—				—				—			—				206			175,003				17		—		—		478				—				—				—				—				495
Exercise of common stock warrants	1,160,715		116	—		—		4,155			—				—				—			—				4,271
Conversions of secured convertible notes into common stock	3,111,111		311	—		—		5,347			—				—				—			—				5,658
Conversions of convertible preferred stock into common stock	537,000		54	—		—		1,557			—				—				—			—				1,611
Repurchase of common stock																													—				—		—		—		—				—				(43,123	)			—				—				(43,123	)
Amortization of actuarial gain under Supplemental Employee Retirement Plan	—		—	—		—		—			—				—				(8)			(8	)			(8	)		—				—		—		—		—				—				—				(3	)			(3	)			(3	)

Comprehensive income																		$	4,749																															$	10,208

Repurchase of common stock	—		—	—		—		—			—				(5,199)							—				(5,199)
Balance at July 30, 2011																													114,742,482			$	11,474		—	$	—	$	325,710			$	(11,121	)		$	(81,086	)						$	287			$	245,264

Balance at July 31, 2010	111,976,044	$	11,198	—	$	—	$	324,594		$	(22,585	)		$	(34,957	)					$	413			$	278,663

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

THE WET SEAL, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(In thousands, except share data)

(Unaudited)


	Common Stock						Paid-In			Accumulated			Treasury			Comprehensive			Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income				Total Stockholders’ Equity			Common Stock								Paid-In Capital			Accumulated Deficit			Treasury Stock				Comprehensive Income			Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income				Total Stockholders’ Equity
	Class A			Class B			Paid-In						Treasury			Comprehensive						Class A						Class B
	Shares	Par Value		Shares	Par Value		Capital			Accumulated		Deficit			Stock			Income									Shares			Par Value	Shares		Par Value
Balance at January 31, 2009	103,319,360	$	10,332	—	$	—	$	303,551		$	(120,772	)	$	(22,461	)					$	558					$	171,208
Balance at January 30, 2010																											106,889,150		$	10,689	—	$	—	$	312,689		$	(33,902	)				$	(29,758	)					$	421			$	260,139
Net income	—		—	—		—		—			8,132			—		$	8,132			—				8,132			—			—	—		—		—			4,757			—			$	4,757			—				4,757
Stock issued pursuant to long-term incentive plans	267,602		27	—		—		(27	)		—			—			—			—				—			213,900			21	—		—		(21	)		—			—				—			—				—
Stock-based compensation - directors and employees (Note 2)	—		—	—		—		471			—			—			—			—				471			—			—	—		—		619			—			—				—			—				619
Amortization of stock payment in lieu of rent	—		—	—		—		48			—			—			—			—				48			—			—	—		—		49			—			—				—			—				49
Exercise of stock options	3,334		—	—		—		8			—			—			—			—				8			64,168			7	—		—		199			—			—				—			—				206
Exercise of common stock warrants	183,572		18	—		—		466			—			—			—			—				484			1,160,715			116	—		—		4,155			—			—				—			—				4,271
Conversions of secured convertible notes into common stock (Note 3)																											3,111,111			311	—		—		5,347			—			—				—			—				5,658
Conversions of convertible preferred stock into common stock (Note 3)																											537,000			54	—		—		1,557			—			—				—			—				1,611
Repurchase of common stock																											—			—	—		—		—			—			(5,199	)			—			—				(5,199	)
Amortization of actuarial gain under Supplemental Employee Retirement Plan	—		—	—		—		—			—			—			(13)			(13	)			(13	)		—			—	—		—		—			—			—				(8	)		(8	)			(8	)

Comprehensive income																$	8,119																											$	4,749

Balance at August 1, 2009	103,773,868	$	10,377	—	$	—	$	304,517		$	(112,640	)	$	(22,461	)				$	545			$	180,338
Balance at July 31, 2010																											111,976,044		$	11,198	—	$	—	$	324,594		$	(29,145	)	$	(34,957	)					$	413			$	272,103

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

THE WET SEAL, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In thousands, except share data)

(Unaudited)


	26 Weeks Ended				26 Weeks Ended
	July 31, 2010		August 1, 2009		July 30, 2011		July 31, 2010
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
Net income	$	4,757	$	8,132	$	10,211	$	4,757
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization		7,988		7,270		9,481		7,988
Amortization of premium on investments						460		—
Amortization/acceleration of discount on secured convertible notes		2,083		287		—		2,083
Amortization of deferred financing costs		145		49		52		145
Amortization of stock payment in lieu of rent		49		48		31		49
Adjustment of derivatives to fair value		(20)		(40)		—		(20)
Interest added to principal of secured convertible notes		35		101		—		35
Conversion inducement fee		700		—
Conversion inducement fee (Note 3)						—		700
Loss on disposal of equipment and leasehold improvements		537		127		46		537
Asset impairment		1,131		1,552		1,316		1,131
Deferred income taxes		4,804		—		5,739		4,804
Stock-based compensation (Note 2)		619		471		1,960		619
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Other receivables		(902)		989		(599)		(902)
Merchandise inventories		(10,126)		(12,521)		(9,840)		(10,126)
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		(1,356)		(229)		(2,481)		(1,356)
Other non-current assets		24		(483)		(106)		24
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities		7,628		8,294		9,841		7,628
Income taxes payable		(47)		(125)		(60)		(47)
Deferred rent		302		(1,129)		997		302
Other long-term liabilities		(66)		(67)		(66)		(66)

Net cash provided by operating activities		18,285		12,726		26,982		18,285

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
Purchase of equipment and leasehold improvements		(13,040)		(11,295)		(14,096)		(13,040)
Proceeds from maturity of marketable securities						12,000		—

Net cash used in investing activities		(13,040)		(11,295)		(2,096)		(13,040)

CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
Proceeds from exercise of stock options		206		8		495		206
Conversion inducement fee		(700)		—
Conversion inducement fee (Note 3)						—		(700)
Proceeds from exercise of common stock warrants		4,271		484		—		4,271
Repurchase of common stock		(5,199)		—		(41,177)		(5,199)

Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities		(1,422)		492
Net cash used in financing activities						(40,682)		(1,422)

NET INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS		3,823		1,923
NET (DECREASE) INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS						(15,796)		3,823
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, beginning of period		161,693		142,064		125,362		161,693

CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, end of period	$	165,516	$	143,987	$	109,566	$	165,516

SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:
Cash paid during the period for:
Interest	$	34	$	33	$	35	$	34
Income taxes	$	597	$	378	$	1,892	$	597
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES OF NON-CASH INVESTING AND FINANCING TRANSACTIONS:
Conversion of secured convertible notes into 3,111,111 shares of Class A common stock	$	5,658	$	—	$	—	$	5,658
Conversion of convertible preferred stock into 537,000 shares of Class A common stock	$	1,611	$	—	$	—	$	1,611
Repurchase of common stock unpaid at end of period					$	1,946	$	—
Purchase of equipment and leasehold improvements unpaid at end of period	$	8,209	$	5,189	$	5,366	$	8,209
Amortization of actuarial gain under Supplemental Employee Retirement Plan	$	(8)	$	(13)	$	(3)	$	(8)

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

THE WET SEAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010 ~~and August 1, 2009~~

(Unaudited)

NOTE 1 – Basis of Presentation, Significant Accounting Policies, and Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements and New Accounting Pronouncements Not Yet Adopted

Basis of Presentation

The information set forth in these condensed consolidated financial statements is unaudited. These statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America ~~(GAAP)~~(“GAAP”) for interim financial information, the instructions to Form 10-Q and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements.

In the opinion of management, all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation have been included. The results of operations for the 13 and 26 weeks ended July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the fiscal year ending January ~~29, 2011.~~28, 2012. For further information, refer to the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Wet Seal, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended January ~~30, 2010.~~29, 2011.

Significant Accounting Policies

Short-Term Investments

The Company’s short-term investments consist of interest-bearing corporate bonds that are guaranteed by the U.S. Government under the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, have maturities that are less than one year and are carried at amortized cost plus accrued income. Short-term investments are carried at amortized cost due to the Company’s intent to hold to maturity. Short-term investments on the condensed consolidated balance sheet were $38.2 million at July 30, 2011. Any unrealized gains or losses on held-to-maturity investments are considered temporary and are not recorded unless an other than temporary impairment has occurred. Factors considered that could result in the necessity to impair include intention to sell, more likely than not being required to sell the security before recovery of the security’s amortized cost basis and whether the Company expects to recover the entire amortized cost basis of the security. The Company has considered all impairment factors and has determined that an other than temporary impairment has not occurred as of July 30, 2011.

Long-Lived Assets

The Company evaluates the carrying value of long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of such assets may not be recoverable. Factors that are considered important that could result in the necessity to perform an impairment review include a current-period operating or cash flow loss combined with a history of operating or cash flow losses and a projection or forecast that indicates continuing losses or insufficient income associated with the realization of a long-lived asset or asset group. Other factors include a significant change in the manner of the use of the asset or a significant negative industry or economic trend. This evaluation is performed based on estimated undiscounted future cash flows from operating activities compared with the carrying value of the related assets. If the undiscounted future cash flows are less than the carrying value, an impairment loss is recognized, measured by the difference between the carrying value and the estimated fair value of the assets, based on discounted cash flows using the Company’s weighted average cost of ~~capital, with such estimated fair values determined using the best information available.~~capital. The Company has considered all relevant valuation techniques that could be obtained without undue cost and effort and has determined that the discounted cash flow approach continues to provide the most relevant and reliable means by which to determine fair value in this circumstance.

At least quarterly, the Company assesses whether events or changes in circumstances have occurred that potentially indicate the carrying value of long-lived assets may not be recoverable. The Company’s evaluations during the 13 and 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010, ~~and August 1, 2009,~~ indicated that operating losses or insufficient operating income existed at certain retail stores, with a projection that the operating losses or insufficient operating income for those locations would continue. As such, the Company recorded non-cash charges of $1.1 million, $1.3 million, $1.0 million ~~$1.1 million, $1.6 million~~ and ~~$1.6~~$1.1 million during the 13 and 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010, ~~and August 1, 2009,~~ respectively, within asset impairment in the condensed consolidated statements of operations, to write down the carrying values of these stores’ long-lived assets to their estimated fair values.

~~Income Taxes~~

The Company began fiscal 2010 with approximately $116.6 million of federal net operating loss carryforwards (NOLs) available to offset taxable income in fiscal 2010 and thereafter, subject to certain annual limitations based on the provisions of Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code (“Section 382”).

For the 13 weeks ended July 31, 2010, the Company’s effective income tax rate was approximately 39%, which is the rate the Company currently expects to incur for the remainder of the fiscal year. The Company incurred a higher effective income tax rate than it had in 2009 primarily as a result of the reversal of its deferred tax asset valuation allowance at the end of fiscal 2009.

The Company’s effective income tax rate for the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010 was approximately 51%. This rate was higher due to $2.8 million in interest charges incurred in the first fiscal quarter upon the conversion of the Company’s remaining Secured Convertible Notes (the “Notes”) and Series C Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Preferred Stock”), which are not tax-deductible. The impact of these non-deductible charges on the effective income tax rate in the first fiscal quarter and the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, was approximately 16% and 12%, respectively.

THE WET SEAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010 ~~and August 1, 2009~~

(Unaudited)

NOTE 1 – Basis of Presentation, Significant Accounting Policies, and Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements and New Accounting Pronouncements Not Yet Adopted (Continued)

Income Taxes

During fiscal 2010, the Company determined it previously had interpreted federal tax rules incorrectly pertaining to expiration of charitable contribution carry forwards available to offset future taxable income. The Company also identified certain other minor errors in its deferred income taxes. As a result, the Company had overstated its net deferred tax assets and understated its accumulated deficit balance by approximately $6.6 million as of the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2010. The Company has corrected deferred tax assets and stockholders’ equity on its accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of July 31, 2010, from amounts previously reported.

A summary of the effects of this income tax correction is as follows:


	July 31, 2010
	As previously reported			As corrected
Deferred tax assets- long term	$	46,909		$	40,349
Total other assets		49,469			42,909
Total assets		374,430			367,870
Accumulated deficit		(22,585	)		(29,145	)
Total stockholders’ equity		278,663			272,103
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity		374,430			367,870

The Company began fiscal 2011 with approximately $93.5 million of federal net operating loss (“NOL”) carry forwards available to offset taxable income in fiscal 2011 and thereafter, subject to certain annual limitations based on the provisions of Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code.

The Company’s effective income tax rate for the 13 and 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, was approximately 34% and 39%. The Company expects a 39% effective income tax rate for fiscal 2011. Due to its expected utilization of federal and state NOL carry forwards during fiscal ~~2010,~~2011, the Company anticipates cash income taxes for the fiscal year will be approximately 2%4.5% of pre-tax income, representing the portion of federal and state alternative minimum taxes and state regular income taxes that cannot be offset by NOLs. The difference between the effective income tax rate and the anticipated cash income taxes is recorded as a non-cash provision for deferred ~~incomes~~income taxes.

The Company’s current expectations regarding the federal NOL carry forwards it may use annually are based on calculations made by management. Through these calculations, management determined that, in April 2005Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements and December 2006, the Company incurred “ownership changes,” as defined in Section 382 that require re-calculation of NOL annual utilization limits. Such ownership changes can result merely from an accumulation of normal market trading activity in the Company’s common stock over time. The NOL annual utilization limits determined upon an ownership change depend on, among other things, the Company’s market capitalization and long-term federal interest rates on the ownership change date. If the Company were to determine it had incurred another ownership change at some time after December 2006, the Company would be required to re-calculate its annual federal NOL utilization limit, which could result in a decrease to NOL carry forwards available to offset taxable income and an increase in cash income tax payments in fiscal 2010 and/or thereafter.

New Accounting Pronouncements Not Yet Adopted

In ~~October 2009,~~January 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ~~(“FASB”~~(the “FASB”) issued guidance related to revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables. Under the new guidance, when vendor specific objective evidence or third party evidence for deliverables in an arrangement cannot be determined, a best estimate of the selling price is required to separate deliverables and allocate arrangement consideration using the relative selling price method. Such guidance is to be applied on a prospective basis for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010, with early adoption permitted. The Company does not believe adoption of this guidance will have any effect on its condensed consolidated financial statements.

~~In January 2010, the FASB~~ issued guidance and clarifications for improving disclosures about fair value measurements. This guidance requires enhanced disclosures regarding transfers in and out of the levels within the fair value hierarchy. Separate disclosures are required for transfers in and out of Level 1 and 2 fair value measurements, and the reasons for the transfers must be disclosed. In the reconciliation for Level 3 fair value measurements, separate disclosures are required for purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements on a gross basis. The new disclosures and clarifications of existing disclosures ~~are~~were effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2009, except for the disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements in the roll forward of activity in Level 3 fair value measurements, which ~~are~~were effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2010. Effective January 31, 2010, the Company adopted the new and updated ~~disclosure~~ guidance for disclosures, aside from ~~those~~that deferred to periods after December 15, 2010, and itthis did not significantly impact ~~the Company’s condensed~~its consolidated financial statements. The Company ~~does not believe adoption of~~adopted the remaining guidance on disclosures effective January 30, 2011, and this did not significantly impact its consolidated financial statements.

THE WET SEAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010

(Unaudited)

NOTE 1 – Basis of Presentation, Significant Accounting Policies, and Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements and New Accounting Pronouncements Not Yet Adopted (Continued)

In May 2011, the FASB issued guidance on the application of fair value accounting where its use is already required or permitted by other standards within GAAP. The amendments change the wording used to describe many of the requirements in GAAP for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. Amendments include those that clarify the FASB’s intent about the application of existing fair value measurement and disclosure requirements, and change a particular principle or requirement for measuring fair value or for disclosing information about fair value measurements. For many of the requirements, the FASB does not intend for the amendments to result in a change in the application of the requirements. This guidance is effective during interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company does not believe the adoption of this guidance will have any effect on its ~~condensed~~ consolidated financial statements.

In June 2011, the FASB issued amended guidance on the presentation of comprehensive income. The amendments provide an entity with an option to present the total of comprehensive income, the components of net income and the components of other comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. In both options, an entity is required to present each component of net income along with total net income, each component of other comprehensive income along with a total for other comprehensive income, and a total amount for comprehensive income. The guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2011, and should be applied on a retrospective basis. The Company has not yet selected which presentation option it will apply. The adoption of this guidance will effect the presentation of its consolidated financial statements.

NOTE 2 – Stock-Based Compensation

The Company ~~has a 2005 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2005 Plan”)~~had one stock incentive plan under which shares were available for grant at July ~~31, 2010.~~30, 2011: the 2005 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2005 Plan”). The Company also previously granted share awards under its 1996 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “1996 Plan”) and ~~its~~the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2000 Plan”) that remain unvested and/or unexercised as of July ~~31, 2010;~~30, 2011; however, the 1996 Plan expired during fiscal 2006 and the 2000 Plan expired during fiscal 2009, and no further share awards may be granted under the 1996 Plan and 2000 Plan. The 2005 Plan, the 2000 Plan, and the 1996 Plan are collectively referred to as the “Plans.”

~~THE WET SEAL, INC.~~

~~NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~

~~For the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, and August 1, 2009~~

~~(Unaudited)~~

~~NOTE 2 – Stock-Based Compensation (Continued)~~

The 2005 Plan permits the granting of options, restricted common stock, performance shares, or other equity-based awards to the Company’s employees, officers, directors, and consultants. The Company believes the granting of equity-based awards helps to align the interests of its employees, officers ~~directors,~~ and ~~consultants~~directors with those of its stockholders. The Company has a practice of issuing new shares to satisfy stock option exercises, as well as for restricted stock and performance share grants. The 2005 Plan was approved by the Company’s stockholders on January 10, 2005, as amended with stockholder approval on July 20, 2005, for the issuance of incentive awards covering 12,500,000 shares of Class A common stock. Additionally, an amended and restated 2005 Plan was approved by the Company’s stockholders on May 19, 2010, which increased the incentive awards capacity ~~under the 2005 Plan~~ to 17,500,000 shares of ~~the Company’s~~ Class A common stock. An aggregate of ~~26,281,061~~22,956,778 shares of ~~the Company’s~~ Class A common stock have been issued or may be issued pursuant to the Plans. As of July ~~31, 2010, 6,582,188~~30, 2011, 3,154,441 shares were available for future grants.

Options

The Plans provide that the per-share exercise price of a stock option may not be less than the fair market value of the Company’s Class A common stock on the date the option is granted. Under the Plans, outstanding options generally vest over periods ranging from three to five years from the grant date and generally expire from five to ten years after the grant date. Certain stock option and other equity-based awards provide for accelerated vesting if there is a change in control (as defined in the Plans). The Company records compensation expense for employee stock options based on the estimated fair value of the options on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The Company uses historical data, the implied volatility of market-traded options and other factors to estimate the expected price volatility, option lives, and forfeiture rates.

THE WET SEAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010

(Unaudited)

NOTE 2 – Stock-Based Compensation (Continued)

The risk-free rate is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant and the estimated life of the option. The following weighted-average assumptions were used to estimate the fair value of options granted during the periods indicated using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model:


	13 Weeks Ended				26 Weeks Ended				13 Weeks Ended						26 Weeks Ended
	July 31, 2010		August 1, 2009		July 31, 2010		August 1, 2009		July 30, 2011			July 31, 2010			July 30, 2011			July 31, 2010
Dividend Yield	0.00	%	0.00	%	0.00	%	0.00	%		0.00	%		0.00	%		0.00	%		0.00	%
Expected Volatility	59.00	%	56.00	%	59.00	%	56.00	%		54.00	%		59.00	%		54.00	%		59.00	%
Risk-Free Interest Rate	1.29	%	1.60	%	1.56	%	1.58	%		0.91	%		1.29	%		1.31	%		1.56	%
Expected Life of Options (in Years)	3.3		3.3		3.3		3.3			3.3			3.3			3.3			3.3

The Company recorded compensation expense of ~~less than $0.1~~$0.2 million, $0.4 million, $0.1 million ~~$0.2 million,~~ and ~~a compensation benefit of $0.2~~$0.1 million, in each case less than $0.01 per basic and diluted share, related to stock options outstanding during the 13 and 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010, ~~and August 1, 2009,~~ respectively. ~~Refer to “Change in Estimated Forfeiture Rate” later within this Note 2 for additional information.~~

At July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, there was ~~$0.6~~$2.9 million of total unrecognized compensation expense related to nonvested stock options under the Company’s share-based payment plans, which will be recognized over an average period of ~~1.7~~2.7 years, representing the remaining vesting periods of such options through fiscal ~~2013.~~2014.

The following table summarizes the Company’s stock option activities with respect to its Plans for the 26 weeks ended July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, as follows (aggregate intrinsic value in thousands):


Options	Number of Shares		Weighted- Average Exercise Price Per Share		Weighted- Average Remaining Contractual Life (in years)	Aggregate Intrinsic Value		Number of Shares			Weighted- Average Exercise Price Per Share		Weighted- Average Remaining Contractual Life (in years)		Aggregate Intrinsic Value
Outstanding at January 30, 2010	2,234,752		$	6.77
Outstanding at January 29, 2011									3,280,857		$	5.26
Granted	32,000		$	4.54					535,000		$	4.10
Exercised	(64,168	)	$	3.21					(175,003	)	$	2.84
Canceled	(443,144	)	$	4.81					(424,549	)	$	8.52

Outstanding at July 31, 2010	1,759,440		$	6.94	2.68	$	148
Vested and expected to vest in the future at July 31, 2010	1,685,572		$	7.09	2.62	$	140
Exercisable at July 31, 2010	1,231,457		$	8.40	2.17	$	84
Outstanding at July 30, 2011									3,216,305		$	4.77		4.50	$	3,116
Vested and expected to vest in the future at July 30, 2011									2,745,868		$	4.95		4.29	$	2,571
Exercisable at July 30, 2011									919,206		$	7.49		1.93	$	344

Options vested and expected to vest in the future is comprised of all options outstanding at July 30, 2011, net of estimated forfeitures. Additional information regarding stock options outstanding as of July 30, 2011, is as follows:


	Options Outstanding						Options Exercisable
Range of Exercise Prices	Number Outstanding as of July 30, 2011		Weighted- Average Remaining Contractual Life (in years)		Weighted- Average Exercise Price Per Share		Number Exercisable as of July 30, 2011		Weighted- Average Exercise Price Per Share
$ 1.81 - $ 2.93		32,500		2.93	$	2.78		20,834	$	2.69
2.96 - 4.44		2,546,198		5.31		3.70		285,385		3.85
4.50 - 6.82		256,357		1.62		6.03		231,737		6.18
7.21 - 10.95		270,750		1.28		8.64		270,750		8.64
11.49 - 19.90		93,000		0.91		16.78		93,000		16.78
23.02 - 23.02		17,500		0.84		23.02		17,500		23.02

$ 1.81 - $23.02		3,216,305		4.50	$	4.77		919,206	$	7.49

THE WET SEAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010 ~~and August 1, 2009~~

(Unaudited)

NOTE 2 – Stock-Based Compensation (Continued)

Options vested and expected to vest in the future is comprised of all options outstanding at July 31, 2010, net of estimated forfeitures. Additional information regarding stock options outstanding as of July 31, 2010, is as follows:

   Options Outstanding    Options Exercisable
Range of Exercise Prices
   Number
Outstanding
as of
July 31,
2010    Weighted-
Average
Remaining
Contractual Life
(in years)    Weighted-
Average
Exercise
Price Per
Share    Number
Exercisable
as of
July 31,
2010    Weighted-
Average
Exercise
Price Per
Share
$    1.81 - $  2.93
   157,500    2.80    $ 2.61    99,169    $ 2.58
      2.96 -     4.83
   608,500    4.11    3.70    153,180    3.95
      4.86 -     8.00
   486,440    2.03    6.39    472,108    6.44
      8.08 -   12.28
   386,500    1.57    10.62    386,500    10.62
    15.02 -   23.02
   120,500    1.43    19.40    120,500    19.40

$    1.81 - $23.02
   1,759,440    2.68    $ 6.94    1,231,457    $ 8.40

The weighted-average grant-date fair value of options granted during the 13 and 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010, was $1.69, $1.60, $1.65 and ~~August 1, 2009, was $1.65,~~ $1.91, ~~$1.36 and $1.37,~~ respectively. The total intrinsic value for options exercised during the 13 and 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010, ~~and August 1, 2009,~~ was ~~less than $0.1~~$0.3 million, ~~$0.1~~$0.3 million, less than $0.1 million and ~~less than~~ $0.1 million, respectively.

Cash received from option exercises under all Plans for the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010, ~~and August 1, 2009,~~ was ~~$0.2~~$0.5 million and ~~less than $0.1~~$0.2 million, respectively. The Company did not realize tax benefits for the tax deductions from option exercises as it must first utilize its regular NOL prior to realizing the excess tax benefits.

Restricted Common Stock and Performance Shares

Under the 2005 Plan, the Company grants directors, certain executives, and other key employees restricted common stock with vesting contingent upon completion of specified service periods ranging from one to three years. The Company also grants certain executives and other key ~~employee’s~~employees performance share awards with vesting contingent upon a combination of specified service periods and the Company’s achievement of specified common stock price levels.

During the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010, ~~and August 1, 2009,~~ the Company granted ~~213,900~~430,635 and ~~263,436~~213,900 shares, respectively, of restricted common stock to certain employees and directors under the Plans. The weighted-average grant-date fair value of the restricted common stock granted during the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010, was $3.87 and ~~August 1, 2009, was~~ $3.35 ~~and $2.71~~ per share, respectively. The Company recorded approximately ~~$0.3~~$0.4 million, ~~$0.6~~$0.7 million, $0.3 million and ~~$0.5~~$0.6 million of compensation expense related to outstanding shares of restricted common stock held by employees and directors during the 13 and 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010, ~~and August 1, 2009,~~ respectively.

During the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010, ~~and August 1, 2009,~~ the Company granted 400,000 and no performance shares, respectively, under the 2005 Plan. The weighted-average grant-date fair value of the performance share grants made during the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, which included consideration of the probability of such shares vesting, was $3.08 per share. The Company recorded compensation expense of $0.5 million and $0.9 million, and a compensation benefit of $0.2 million and $0.1 million ~~and compensation expense of $0.2 million and $0.2 million~~ during the 13 and 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010, ~~and August 1, 2009,~~ respectively, related to performance shares ~~previously~~ granted to officers. The benefit recorded in the 13 and 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010 was related to higher forfeiture adjustment in such periods. Refer to “Change in Estimated Forfeiture Rate” later within this Note 2 for additional information.

~~THE WET SEAL, INC.~~

~~NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~

~~For the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, and August 1, 2009~~

~~(Unaudited)~~

~~NOTE 2 – Stock-Based Compensation (Continued)~~

The fair value of nonvested restricted common stock awards is ~~determined based on~~equal to the closing trading price of the Company’s Class A common stock on the grant date. The fair value of nonvested performance shares ~~granted to officers~~ is determined based on a number of factors, including the closing trading price of the Company’s Class A common stock and the estimated probability of achieving the Company’s stock price performance conditions as of the grant date. The following table summarizes activity with respect to the Company’s nonvested restricted common stock and performance shares for the 26 weeks ended July ~~31, 2010:~~30, 2011:


Nonvested Restricted Common Stock and Performance Shares	Number of Shares		Weighted- Average Grant- Date Fair Value		Number of Shares			Weighted- Average Grant- Date Fair Value
Nonvested at January 30, 2010	1,596,318		$	2.37
Nonvested at January 29, 2011						2,061,212		$	3.06
Granted	213,900		$	3.35		830,635		$	3.49
Vested	(254,038	)	$	2.81		(179,572	)	$	3.35
Forfeited	(30,000	)	$	3.09		(54,600	)	$	3.41

Nonvested at July 31, 2010	1,526,180		$	2.42
Nonvested at July 30, 2011						2,657,675		$	3.17

The fair value of restricted common stock and performance shares that vested during the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, was $0.6 million.

THE WET SEAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010 ~~was $0.9 million.~~

(Unaudited)

NOTE 2 – Stock-Based Compensation (Continued)

At July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, there was ~~$0.5~~$6.4 million of total unrecognized compensation expense related to nonvested restricted common stock and performance shares under the Company’s share-based payment plans, of which ~~$0.4~~$3.5 million relates to restricted common stock and ~~$0.1~~$2.9 million relates to performance shares. That cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of ~~0.4~~2.0 years. These estimates utilize subjective assumptions about expected forfeiture rates, which could change over time. Therefore, the amount of unrecognized compensation expense noted above does not necessarily represent the expense that will ultimately be recognized by the Company in its condensed consolidated statements of operations.

The following table summarizes stock-based compensation recorded in the condensed consolidated statements of operations (in thousands):

   13 Weeks Ended    26 Weeks Ended
   July 31,
2010 August 1,
2009    July 31,
2010 August 1,
2009
Cost of sales
   $ (156 ) $ 113    $ (130 ) $ (180 )
Selling, general, and administrative expenses
   259    539    749    651

Stock-based compensation
   $ 103    $ 652    $ 619    $ 471

~~Change in Estimated Forfeiture Rate~~

In the first quarter of fiscal 2009, based on historical experience, the Company modified the estimated annual forfeiture rate used in recognizing stock-based compensation expense, from a 10% forfeiture rate to a 15% forfeiture rate. During this same period, the Company also realized benefits from actual forfeiture experience that was higher than previously estimated for unvested stock options and restricted common stock, resulting primarily from executive and other employee departures from the Company. The impact of these events were benefits during the 26 weeks ended August 1, 2009, of approximately $0.9 million, of which $0.4 million was included in cost of sales and $0.5 million was included in selling, general, and administrative expenses in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. During the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, the estimated annual forfeiture rate has remained at 15%.

~~THE WET SEAL, INC.~~

~~NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~

~~For the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, and August 1, 2009~~

~~(Unaudited)~~


	13 Weeks Ended					26 Weeks Ended
	July 30, 2011		July 31, 2010			July 30, 2011		July 31, 2010
Cost of sales	$	45	$	(156	)	$	91	$	(130	)
Selling, general, and administrative expenses		1,015		259			1,869		749

Stock-based compensation	$	1,060	$	103		$	1,960	$	619

NOTE 3 – Senior Revolving Credit Facility, Secured Convertible Notes, Convertible Preferred Stock, and Common Stock Warrants

~~The~~On February 3, 2011, the Company ~~maintains a~~renewed, via amendment and restatement, its $35.0 million senior revolving credit facility with its existing lender (the “Facility”), which can be increased up to $50.0 million in the absence of any default and upon the satisfaction of certain conditions precedent specified in the Facility. The Facility expires in ~~May 2011 and the Company intends to either replace or renew the Facility.~~February 2016. Under the Facility, the Company is subject to borrowing base limitations on the amount that can be borrowed and certain customary covenants, including, under certain circumstances, covenants limiting the ability to incur additional indebtedness, make investments and acquisitions, grant liens, pay dividends, repurchase its Class A common stock, close stores, and dispose of assets, ~~subject to certain exceptions,~~ without the lender’s consent. The ability of the Company ~~and its subsidiaries~~ to borrow and request the issuance of letters of credit is subject to the requirement that the Company maintain an excess of the borrowing base over the outstanding credit extensions of ~~not less than $5.0~~the greater of 10% of the aggregate amount of the Facility or $4.0 million. The annual interest rate on the revolving line of credit under the Facility is (i) the higher of the lender’s prime rate, the Federal funds rate plus 0.5% or if the ~~Company elects, the~~one month London InterBank Offered Rate (LIBOR) plus 1.0%, collectively referred to as the “Base Rate”, plus the applicable margin ranging from 0.5% to 1.0% or, (ii) if the Company elects, either the one, two, three or six months LIBOR plus a margin ranging from ~~1.0%~~1.5% to ~~1.5%~~2.0%. The applicable Base Rate or LIBOR margin is based on the level of average excess availability, as defined under the Facility, at the time of election, as adjusted quarterly. The ~~applicable LIBOR margin was 1.0% as of July 31, 2010. The~~ Company also incurs fees on outstanding letters of credit under the Facility at aan annual rate equal to the applicable LIBOR margin for standby letters of credit and ~~33.3%~~23.0% of the applicable LIBOR margin for commercial letters of credit. Additionally, the Company is subject to commitment fees at an annual rate of 0.25% on the unused portion of the line of credit under the Facility.

Borrowings under the Facility are secured by ~~all presently owned~~cash, cash equivalents, investments, receivables and ~~hereafter acquired assets of~~inventory held by the Company and two of its wholly owned subsidiaries, The Wet Seal Retail, Inc. and Wet Seal Catalog, Inc., each of which may be a borrower under the Facility. ~~The obligations of the Company and the subsidiary borrowers under the Facility are guaranteed by another wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, Wet Seal GC, LLC.~~

At July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, the amount outstanding under the Facility consisted of ~~$3.8~~$5.3 million in open documentary letters of credit related to merchandise purchases and $1.5 million in outstanding standby letters of credit, and the Company had ~~$29.7~~$28.2 million available under the Facility for cash advances and/or the issuance of additional letters of credit.

At July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, the Company was in compliance with all covenant requirements related to the Facility.

THE WET SEAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010

(Unaudited)

NOTE 3 – Senior Revolving Credit Facility, Secured Convertible Notes, Convertible Preferred Stock, and Common Stock Warrants (Continued)

During the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, investors in the Company’s previously outstanding Secured Convertible Notes (the “Notes”) converted $4.7 million of the Notes into 3,111,111 shares of the Company’s Class A common stock. As a result of these conversions, the Company recorded non-cash interest charges of $2.1 million during the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, to write-off a ratable portion of unamortized debt discount and deferred financing costs associated with the Notes. Additionally, a ratable portion of accrued interest of $1.0 million was forfeited by ~~the~~a holder when the Notes were converted and it was written off to paid-in capital. ~~Finally, the~~The Company also provided the holder with a $0.7 million conversion inducement, which was recorded as an interest charge during the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010. The Company also repurchased an insignificant remaining Note balance from another holder. As a result of these transactions, there ~~are~~were no longer any ~~remaining~~ Notes outstanding as of July 31, 2010, and there was a satisfaction and discharge of ~~our~~the Company’s obligations under the Indenture governing the Notes. ~~No Notes were converted during the 26 weeks ended August 1, 2009.~~

Prior to the first quarter of fiscal 2010, the Company recognized the ratable portion of accrued interest forfeited by Note holders upon conversions as a reduction of interest expense. The Company has determined that the correct treatment of accrued interest forfeited is a credit to paid-in capital rather than a reduction of interest expense. In the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of January 30, 2010, and August 1, 2009, the Company has retrospectively reclassified $2.9 million from accumulated deficit to paid-in capital to reflect the correct treatment of accrued interest forfeited in periods prior to fiscal 2010. This reclassification has no effect on the previously reported total stockholders’ equity or cash flows and is not material to all periods presented.

During the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, ~~and August 1, 2009,~~ certain investors exercised portions of outstanding common stock warrants, resulting in the issuance of 1,160,715 ~~and 183,572~~ shares ~~respectively,~~ of the Company’s Class A common stock in exchange for $4.3 million ~~and $0.5 million, respectively,~~ of proceeds to the Company.

During the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, investors in the Company’s Series C Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Preferred Stock”) converted $1.6 million of Preferred Stock into 537,000 shares of the Company’s Class A common stock. As a result of this transaction, there iswas no longer any Preferred Stock outstanding as of July 31, 2010. ~~No Preferred Stock was converted during the 26 weeks ended August 1, 2009.~~

~~THE WET SEAL, INC.~~

~~NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~

~~For the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, and August 1, 2009~~

~~(Unaudited)~~

NOTE 4 – Fair Value Measurements

Fair value is defined as the price that would be received upon sale of an asset or paid upon transfer of a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date and in the principal or most advantageous market for that asset or liability. ~~The fair~~Fair value ~~should be~~is calculated based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, not on assumptions specific to the entity. In addition, the fair value of liabilities ~~should include~~includes consideration of non-performance risk, including the Company’s own credit risk.

Inputs used in measuring fair value are prioritized into a three-level hierarchy based on whether the inputs to those measurements are observable or unobservable. Observable inputs reflect market data obtained from independent sources, while unobservable inputs reflect the Company’s market assumptions. The fair-value hierarchy requires the use of observable market data when available and consists of the following levels:

Level 1 – Quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets;

Level 2 – Quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active; and model-derived valuations in which all significant inputs are observable in active markets; and

Level 3 – Valuations derived from valuation techniques in which one or more significant inputs are unobservable.

The following tables present information on the Company’s financial instruments (in thousands):

   Carrying
Amount
at July 31,
2010    Fair Value Measurements
at Reporting Date Using
      Level 1    Level 2    Level 3
Financial assets:

Cash and cash equivalents
   $ 165,516    $ 21,095    $ 144,421    $ —
Long-term tenant allowance receivables
   762    —      —      762
   Carrying
Amount
January 30,
2010    Fair Value Measurements
at Reporting Date Using
      Level 1    Level 2    Level 3
Financial assets:

Cash and cash equivalents
   $ 161,693    $ 17,306    $ 144,387    $ —
Long-term tenant allowance receivables
   728    —      —      728
Financial liabilities:

Embedded derivative instrument
   20    —      20    —
Notes
   3,540    10,422    —      —
Preferred Stock
   1,611    1,799    —      —
   Carrying
Amount
at August 1,
2009    Fair Value Measurements
at Reporting Date Using
      Level 1    Level 2    Level 3
Financial assets:

Cash and cash equivalents
   $ 143,987    $ 4,685    $ 139,302    $ —
Financial liabilities:

Embedded derivative instrument
   20    —      20    —
Notes
   3,095    10,267    —      —
Preferred Stock
   1,611    1,772    —      —


	Carrying Amount at July 30, 2011		Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using
	Carrying Amount at July 30, 2011		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3
Financial assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	109,566	$	23,394	$	86,172	$	—
Short-term investments		38,230		—		38,243		—
Long-term tenant allowance receivables		836		—		—		836

THE WET SEAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010 ~~and August 1, 2009~~

(Unaudited)

NOTE 4 – Fair Value Measurements (Continued)


	Carrying Amount at January 29, 2011		Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using
	Carrying Amount at January 29, 2011		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3
Financial assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	125,362	$	31,738	$	93,624	$	—
Short-term investments		50,690		—		50,686		—
Long-term tenant allowance receivables		798		—		—		798

	Carrying Amount at July 31, 2010		Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using
	Carrying Amount at July 31, 2010		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3
Financial assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	165,516	$	21,095	$	144,421	$	—
Long-term tenant allowance receivables		762		—		—		762

Cash and cash equivalents are carried at either cost or amortized cost, which approximates fair value, due to their short term maturities. ~~Money~~Certain money market funds are valued through the use of quoted market prices orand are represented as Level 1. Other money market funds are valued at $1, which is generally the net asset value of these ~~funds.~~funds and are represented at Level 2. Short-term investments are carried at amortized cost due to the Company’s intent to hold to maturity. The fair value of the Company’s short-term investments is determined based on quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets. The Company believes the carrying amounts of other receivables and accounts payable approximate fair value. The fair value of the long-term tenant allowance receivables was determined by discounting them to present value using an incremental borrowing rate of 9.26%, at the time of recording, over their five year collection period, and they are included in other assets within the condensed consolidated balance sheet. The Company determined the fair value of its embedded derivative instrument using a combination of the Black-Scholes model and Monte-Carlo simulation. The estimated fair values for the Notes and Preferred Stock were determined to be the market value of the Company’s Class A common stock as of January 30, 2010, and August 1, 2009, multiplied by the number of shares of common stock into which such securities could be converted. There are no longer any embedded derivatives, Notes or Preferred Stock outstanding as of July 31, 2010, as a result of the conversions discussed in Note 3.

The table below segregates all non-financial assets and liabilities as of July 30, 2011, January 29, 2011, and July 31, 2010, ~~January 30, 2010, and August 1, 2009,~~ that are measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis in periods subsequent to initial recognition into the most appropriate level within the fair value hierarchy based on the inputs used to determine the fair value at the measurement date:


	Carrying Amount at July 31, 2010			Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using									Total Gains (Losses)				Carrying Amount at July 30, 2011				Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using												Total Gains (Losses)
	Carrying Amount at July 31, 2010			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3			Total Gains (Losses)				Carrying Amount at July 30, 2011				Level 1				Level 2				Level 3				Total Gains (Losses)
Long-lived assets held and used	$	87,029		$	—		$	—		$	87,029		$	(1,131	)		$	93,164			$	—			$	—			$	93,164			$	(1,316	)

Total assets	$	87,029		$	—		$	—		$	87,029		$	(1,131	)		$	93,164			$	—			$	—			$	93,164			$	(1,316	)


	Carrying Amount January 30, 2010			Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using									Total Gains (Losses)				Carrying Amount at January 29, 2011				Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using
			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3							Level 1						Level 2				Level 3
Long-lived assets held and used	Carrying Amount January 30, 2010	$	78,063		$	—		$	—		$	78,063	Total Gains (Losses)		$	(2,341	Carrying Amount at January 29, 2011	)		$	88,720			$	—			$	—			$	88,720

Total assets	$	78,063		$	—		$	—		$	78,063		$	(2,341	)		$	88,720			$	—			$	—			$	88,720


																	Carrying Amount at July 31, 2010				Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using												Total Gains (Losses)
	Carrying Amount at August 1, 2009			Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using									Total Gains (Losses)							Level 1				Level 2				Level 3					Total Gains (Losses)
			Level 1			Level 2			Level 3
Long-lived assets held and used	Carrying Amount at August 1, 2009	$	79,469		$	—		$	—		$	79,469	Total Gains (Losses)				Carrying Amount at July 31, 2010	$	(1,552	)		$	87,029			$	—			$	—			$	87,029	$	(1,131	)

Total assets	$	79,469		$	—		$	—		$	79,469		$	(1,552	)		$	87,029			$	—			$	—			$	87,029			$	(1,131	)

The Company performs impairment tests whenever there are indicators of impairment. Refer to Note 1 for further information.

Long-lived assets held and used with a carrying value of $87.0 million and $79.5 million, respectively, represent their fair values, after the impairment charges of $1.0 million, $1.1 million, $1.6 million and $1.6 million, respectively, during the 13 and 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, and August 1, 2009.

THE WET SEAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010 ~~and August 1, 2009~~

(Unaudited)

NOTE 5 – Net Income Per Share

Net income per share, basic, is computed based on the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the period, including consideration of the two-class method with respect to certain of the Company’s other equity securities (see below). Net income per share, diluted, is computed based on the weighted-average number of common and potentially dilutive common equivalent shares outstanding for the period, also with consideration given to the two-class method.

The dilutive effect of stock warrants iswas determined using the “treasury stock” method, whereby exercise is assumed at the beginning of the reporting period and proceeds from such exercise are assumed to be used to purchase the Company’s Class A common stock at the average market price during the period. The dilutive effect of stock options is also determined using the “treasury stock” method, whereby proceeds from such exercise, unamortized compensation on share-based awards, and excess tax benefits arising in connection with share-based compensation are assumed to be used to purchase the Class A common stock at the average market price during the period.

The Notes and Preferred Stock were convertible into shares of Class A common stock. Both of these securities included rights whereby, upon payment of dividends or other distributions to Class A common stockholders, the Notes and Preferred Stock would participate ratably in such distributions based on the number of common shares into which such securities were convertible at that time. Because of these rights, the Notes and Preferred Stock were considered to be participating securities requiring the use of the two-class method for the computation of earnings per share. For the dilutive computation, under the two-class method, determination of whether the Notes and Preferred Stock were dilutive was based on the application of the “if-converted” method. Although the Notes and Preferred Stock were fully converted and represented Class A common shares outstanding as of July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010, they were included in the computation of diluted earnings for the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, with respect to the period they were outstanding prior to conversion. For the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, ~~and the 13 and 26 weeks ended August 1, 2009,~~ the effect of the Notes and Preferred Stock was not dilutive to the computation of diluted earnings per share.

While the Company historically has paid no cash dividends, participants in the Company’s equity compensation plans who were granted restricted stock and performance shares are allowed to ~~retain~~receive cash dividends paid on unvested restricted stock and unvested performance shares. The Company’s unvested restricted stock and unvested performance shares also qualify as participating securities and are included in the computation of earnings per share pursuant to the two-class method. For the dilutive computation, under the two-class method, determination of whether the unvested share-based payment awards are dilutive is based on the application of the “treasury stock” method and whether the performance criteria has been met. For the 13 and 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010, ~~and August 1, 2009,~~ the effect of the unvested share-based payment awards was anti-dilutive to the computation of diluted earnings per share.

THE WET SEAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010

(Unaudited)

NOTE 5 – Net Income Per Share (Continued)

The two-class method requires allocation of undistributed earnings per share among the common stock, Notes, Preferred Stock and unvested share-based payment awards based on the dividend and other distribution participation rights under each of these securities. The following table summarizes the allocation of undistributed earnings among common stock and other participating securities using the two-class method and reconciles the weighted average common shares used in the computation of basic and diluted earnings per share (in thousands, except share data):

   13 Weeks Ended
   July 31, 2010    August 1, 2009
   Net Income Shares    Per Share
Amount    Net Income Shares    Per Share
Amount
Basic earnings per share:

Net income
   $ 1,615          $ 3,103
Less: Undistributed earnings allocable to participating securities
   (23 )       (159 )

Basic earnings per share
   $ 1,592    100,257,750    $ 0.02    $ 2,944    95,594,834    $ 0.03

Diluted earnings per share:

Net income
   $ 1,615          $ 3,103
Less: Undistributed earnings allocable to participating securities
   (23 )       (158 )
Effect of dilutive securities
   298,884       564,427

Diluted earnings per share
   $ 1,592    100,556,634    $ 0.02    $ 2,945    96,159,261    $ 0.03


	13 Weeks Ended
	July 30, 2011							July 31, 2010
	Net Income			Shares		Per Share Amount		Net Income			Shares		Per Share Amount
Basic earnings per share:
Net income	$	2,198						$	1,615
Less: Undistributed earnings allocable to participating securities		(59	)						(23	)

Basic earnings per share	$	2,139			95,731,926	$	0.02	$	1,592			100,257,750	$	0.02

Diluted earnings per share:
Net income	$	2,198						$	1,615
Less: Undistributed earnings allocable to participating securities		(59	)						(23	)
Effect of dilutive securities					103,118							298,884

Diluted earnings per share	$	2,139			95,835,044	$	0.02	$	1,592			100,556,634	$	0.02


	26 Weeks Ended
	July 30, 2011							July 31, 2010
	Net Income			Shares		Per Share Amount		Net Income			Shares		Per Share Amount
Basic earnings per share:
Net income	$	10,211						$	4,757
Less: Undistributed earnings allocable to participating securities		(249	)						(127	)

Basic earnings per share	$	9,962			97,324,336	$	0.10	$	4,630			98,756,560	$	0.05

Diluted earnings per share:
Net income	$	10,211						$	4,757
Less: Undistributed earnings allocable to participating securities		(249	)						(126	)
Effect of dilutive securities					75,013							657,685

Diluted earnings per share	$	9,962			97,399,349	$	0.10	$	4,631			99,414,245	$	0.05

THE WET SEAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010 ~~and August 1, 2009~~

(Unaudited)

NOTE 5 – Net Income Per Share (Continued)

   26 Weeks Ended
   July 31, 2010    August 1, 2009
   Net Income Shares    Per Share
Amount    Net Income Shares    Per Share
Amount
Basic earnings per share:

Net income
   $ 4,757          $ 8,132
Less: Undistributed earnings allocable to participating securities
   (127 )       (418 )

Basic earnings per share
   $ 4,630    98,756,560    $ 0.05    $ 7,714    95,492,536    $ 0.08

Diluted earnings per share:

Net income
   $ 4,757          $ 8,132
Less: Undistributed earnings allocable to participating securities
   (126 )       (416 )
Effect of dilutive securities
   657,685       496,128

Diluted earnings per share
   $ 4,631    99,414,245    $ 0.05    $ 7,716    95,988,664    $ 0.08

The computations of diluted earnings per share excluded the following potentially dilutive securities exercisable or convertible into Class A common stock for the periods indicated because their effect would not have been dilutive.

   13-Week Period Ended    26-Week Period Ended
   July 31,
2010    August 1,
2009    July 31,
2010    August 1,
2009
Stock options outstanding
   1,558,143    2,082,286    1,502,585    2,080,692
Performance shares and nonvested restricted stock awards
   1,481,180    1,508,872    1,538,774    1,525,165
Stock issuable upon conversion of secured convertible notes
   —      3,111,113    991,453    3,111,113
Stock issuable upon conversion of preferred stock
   —      537,000    168,181    537,000
Stock issuable upon exercise of warrants:

June 2004 warrants
   —      1,723,705    —      1,723,705
Series E warrants
   —      6,092,116    —      6,092,116

Total
   3,039,323    15,055,092    4,200,993    15,069,791

Based upon the respective exercise prices and number of outstanding warrants, exercise of all outstanding warrants via cash payment by the warrant holders as of July 31, 2010 would have resulted in proceeds to the Company of $18.1 million.


	13-Week Period Ended				26-Week Period Ended
	July 30, 2011		July 31, 2010		July 30, 2011		July 31, 2010
Stock options outstanding		2,253,002		1,558,143		2,490,845		1,502,585
Performance shares and nonvested restricted stock awards		2,659,099		1,481,180		2,433,945		1,538,774
Stock issuable upon conversion of secured convertible notes		—		—		—		991,453
Stock issuable upon conversion of preferred stock		—		—		—		168,181

Total		4,912,101		3,039,323		4,924,790		4,200,993

NOTE 6 – Commitments and Contingencies

On July 19, 2006, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of certain of the Company’s current and former employees that were employed and paid by the Company on an hourly basis during the four-year period from July 19, 2002 through July 19, 2006. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleged various violations under the State of California Labor Code, the State of California Business and Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. On November 30, 2006, the Company reached an agreement to pay approximately $0.3 million to settle this matter, subject to Superior Court approval. On ~~May 18, 2007,~~September 27, 2010, the Superior Court ~~entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement. On February 29, 2008, the court issued its order granting~~granted final approval of the ~~class action~~ settlement ~~subject to appeal. On April 28, 2008, a notice of~~agreement. An appeal ~~of the judgment~~ was ~~filed. On May 6, 2009, the Court reversed and remanded the case to the Superior Court to re-evaluate the fairness of the settlement, and a final hearing will take place in September 2010.~~subsequently filed on January 26, 2011. As of July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, the Company has accrued an amount equal to the settlement amount in accrued liabilities in its condensed consolidated balance sheet.

~~THE WET SEAL, INC.~~

~~NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~

~~For the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, and August 1, 2009~~

~~(Unaudited)~~

~~NOTE 6 – Commitments and Contingencies (Continued)~~

On May 22, 2007, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange on behalf of certain of the Company’s current and former employees who were employed and paid by the Company from May 22, 2003 through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleged various violations under the State of California Labor Code, the State of California Business and Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. ~~Discovery is ongoing~~On December 17, 2010, the court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification in its entirety and denied Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to File An Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs ~~filed their motion for class certification in July 2010. The Company’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion is due on September 24, 2010, and the hearing is scheduled for October 8, 2010.~~have appealed both orders. The Company is vigorously defending this litigation and is unable to predict the likely outcome and whether such outcome may have a material adverse effect on its results of operations or financial condition. Accordingly, no provision for a loss contingency has been accrued as of July ~~31, 2010.~~30, 2011.

On September 29, 2008, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco on behalf of certain of the Company’s current and former employees who were employed and paid by the Company from September 29, 2004 through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleges various violations under the State of California Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions Code. ~~Plaintiffs recently filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a motion to strike allegations of the third amended complaint on or about February 16, 2010 which was held in abeyance.~~ The case has been transferred to the complex panel of the San Francisco Superior Court for case management purposes. ~~No class certification motion filing deadline has been set~~Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Defendants’ Motion to Strike Class Claims were filed on April 25, 2011, were heard by the Court on August 5, 2011, and on August 16, 2011, the court ~~and discovery is ongoing.~~denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. The Company is vigorously defending this litigation and is unable to predict the likely outcome and whether such outcome may have a material adverse effect on its results of operations or financial condition. Accordingly, no provision for a loss contingency has been accrued as of July 30, 2011.

THE WET SEAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, ~~2010.~~2010

~~On March 18, 2009, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange on behalf of certain of the Company’s current~~(Unaudited)

NOTE 6 – Commitments and former employees that were employed and paid by the Company from March 18, 2005 through March 18, 2009. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleged various violations under the State of California Labor Code, the State of California Business and Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. On October 23, 2009, the Company reached an agreement to pay approximately $0.2 million to settle this matter, subject to Superior Court approval. The Court has preliminarily approved the settlement and set a final approval hearing for September 2, 2010. The Company paid the preliminary settlement amount in August 2010.Contingencies (Continued)

On April 24, 2009, the ~~Pennsylvania~~U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”), requested information and records relevant to several charges of discrimination by the Company against employees of the Company. In the course of this investigation, the EEOC served ~~the Company with~~ a subpoena seeking information related to current and former employees throughout the United States. In April 2010, the Company filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeking relief from the subpoena, which action it has since voluntarily dismissed. Later that same month, the EEOC filed an application to enforce the subpoena in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and is in the process of a nationwide investigation. The Company is awaiting the results of the ~~EEOC’s~~ investigation and is unable to predict the likely outcome and whether such outcome may have a material adverse effect on its results of operations or financial condition. Accordingly, no provision for a loss contingency has been accrued as of July ~~31, 2010.~~30, 2011.

On May 9, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda on behalf of certain of the Company’s current and former employees who were employed and paid by the Company from May 9, 2007 through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleges various violations under the State of California Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions Code. On June 7, 2011, the Company filed a Petition for Coordination with the Judicial Council of California to coordinate this action with the Orange County action dated May 22, 2007. No hearing date has been set for the Coordination Motion. The Company is vigorously defending this litigation and is unable to predict the likely outcome and whether such outcome may have a material adverse effect on its results of operations or financial condition. Accordingly, no provision for a loss contingency has been accrued as of July 30, 2011.

From time to time, the Company is involved in other litigation matters relating to claims arising out of its operations in the normal course of business. The Company believes that, in the event of a settlement or an adverse judgment on certain of these claims, ~~arising out of the normal course of business,~~ the Company has insurance coverage to cover a portion of such losses; however, certain other matters may exist or arise for which the Company does not have insurance coverage. As of July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, except as described in the paragraphs above, the Company was not engaged in any other legal proceedings that are expected, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on its results of operations or financial condition.

~~THE WET SEAL, INC.~~

~~NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~

~~For the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, and August 1, 2009~~

~~(Unaudited)~~

NOTE 7 – Segment Reporting

The Company operates exclusively in the retail apparel industry in which it sells fashionable and contemporary apparel and ~~accessories~~accessory items, primarily through mall-based chains of retail stores, to female consumers with a young, active lifestyle. The Company has identified two operating segments (“Wet Seal” and “Arden B”). Internet operations for Wet Seal and Arden B are included in their respective operating segments.

Information for the 13 and 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010, ~~and August 1, 2009,~~ for the two reportable segments is set forth below (in thousands, except percentages):

13 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010
   Wet Seal Arden B Corporate
and
Unallocated Total
Net sales
   $ 108,875    $ 22,666 $ —      $ 131,541
Percentage of consolidated net sales
   83 % 17 % —      100 %
Operating income (loss)
   $ 6,219    $ 2,676 $ (6,291 ) $ 2,604
Depreciation and amortization expense
   $ 3,398    $ 370 $ 226 $ 3,994
Interest income
   $ —      $ —      $ 85 $ 85
Interest expense
   $ —      $ —      $ 25 $ 25
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes
   $ 6,219    $ 2,676 $ (6,231 ) $ 2,664
13 Weeks Ended August 1, 2009
   Wet Seal Arden B Corporate
and
Unallocated Total
Net sales
   $ 111,517    $ 24,849 $ —      $ 136,366
Percentage of consolidated net sales
   82 % 18 % —      100 %
Operating income (loss)
   $ 6,043    $ 3,253 $ (5,999 ) $ 3,297
Depreciation and amortization expense
   $ 2,996    $ 407 $ 228    $ 3,631
Interest income
   $ —      $ —      $ 132    $ 132
Interest expense
   $ —      $ —      $ 246    $ 246
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes
   $ 6,043    $ 3,253 $ (6,113 ) $ 3,183
26 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010
   Wet Seal Arden B Corporate
and
Unallocated Total
Net sales
   $ 222,786    $ 46,517 $ —      $ 269,303
Percentage of consolidated net sales
   83 % 17 % —      100 %
Operating income (loss)
   $ 20,548    $ 5,913 $ (13,888 ) $ 12,573
Depreciation and amortization expense
   $ 6,764    $ 743 $ 481 $ 7,988
Interest income
   $ —      $ —      $ 159 $ 159
Interest expense
   $ —      $ —      $ 2,992 $ 2,992
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes
   $ 20,548    $ 5,913 $ (16,721 ) $ 9,740
26 Weeks Ended August 1, 2009
   Wet Seal Arden B Corporate
and
Unallocated Total
Net sales
   $ 219,882    $ 48,493 $ —      $ 268,375
Percentage of consolidated net sales
   82 % 18 % —      100 %
Operating income (loss)
   $ 15,937    $ 5,776 $ (13,208 ) $ 8,505
Depreciation and amortization expense
   $ 5,982    $ 833 $ 455    $ 7,270
Interest income
   $ —      $ —      $ 316    $ 316
Interest expense
   $ —      $ —      $ 437    $ 437
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes
   $ 15,937    $ 5,776 $ (13,329 ) $ 8,384


13 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011	Wet Seal			Arden B			Corporate and Unallocated			Total
Net sales	$	125,033		$	23,737		$	—		$	148,770
Percentage of consolidated net sales		84	%		16	%		—			100	%
Operating income (loss)	$	10,280		$	1,449		$	(8,404	)	$	3,325
Depreciation and amortization expense	$	3,929		$	504		$	381		$	4,814
Interest income	$	—		$	—		$	66		$	66
Interest expense	$	—		$	—		$	44		$	44
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes	$	10,280		$	1,449		$	(8,382	)	$	3,347

THE WET SEAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010 ~~and August 1, 2009~~

(Unaudited)

NOTE 7 – Segment Reporting (Continued)


13 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010	Wet Seal			Arden B			Corporate and Unallocated			Total
Net sales	$	108,875		$	22,666		$	—		$	131,541
Percentage of consolidated net sales		83	%		17	%		—			100	%
Operating income (loss)	$	6,219		$	2,676		$	(6,291	)	$	2,604
Depreciation and amortization expense	$	3,398		$	370		$	226		$	3,994
Interest income	$	—		$	—		$	85		$	85
Interest expense	$	—		$	—		$	25		$	25
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes	$	6,219		$	2,676		$	(6,231	)	$	2,664

26 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011	Wet Seal			Arden B			Corporate and Unallocated			Total
Net sales	$	256,086		$	48,724		$	—		$	304,810
Percentage of consolidated net sales		84	%		16	%		—			100	%
Operating income (loss)	$	29,094		$	4,014		$	(16,457	)	$	16,651
Depreciation and amortization expense	$	7,713		$	1,044		$	724		$	9,481
Interest income	$	—		$	—		$	138		$	138
Interest expense	$	—		$	—		$	87		$	87
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes	$	29,094		$	4,014		$	(16,406	)	$	16,702

26 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010	Wet Seal			Arden B			Corporate and Unallocated			Total
Net sales	$	222,786		$	46,517		$	—		$	269,303
Percentage of consolidated net sales		83	%		17	%		—			100	%
Operating income (loss)	$	20,548		$	5,913		$	(13,888	)	$	12,573
Depreciation and amortization expense	$	6,764		$	743		$	481		$	7,988
Interest income	$	—		$	—		$	159		$	159
Interest expense	$	—		$	—		$	2,992		$	2,992
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes	$	20,548		$	5,913		$	(16,721	)	$	9,740

The “Corporate and Unallocated” column is presented solely to allow for reconciliation of segment contribution to consolidated operating income, interest income, interest expense and income before provision for income taxes. Wet Seal and Arden B segment results include net sales, cost of sales, asset impairment and other direct store and field management expenses, with no allocation of corporate overhead or interest income and expense.

Wet Seal operating ~~segment results~~income during the 13 and 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010, ~~and August 1, 2009 include~~includes $0.6 million, $0.8 million, $1.0 million ~~$1.1 million, $1.6 million~~ and ~~$1.6~~$1.1 million, respectively, of asset impairment charges.

Arden B operating income during the 13 and 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, includes $0.5 million and $0.5 million of asset impairment charges.

Corporate and Unallocated expenses during the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, include non-cash interest expense of $2.1 million as a result of accelerated write-off of remaining unamortized debt discount and deferred financing costs upon conversion of Notes and $0.7 million of interest expense for a conversion inducement associated with conversions of Notes and Preferred Stock.

THE WET SEAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010

(Unaudited)

NOTE 8 – Treasury Stock

On September 7, 2010, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized a program to repurchase up to $25.0 million of the outstanding shares of its Class A common stock from time to time in the open market or in privately negotiated transactions. On May 17, 2011, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized a $31.7 million increase to the existing stock repurchase program approved in September 2010, bringing the repurchase authorization up to $56.7 million. Up to June 13, 2011, the timing and number of shares repurchased were determined by the Company’s management based on its evaluation of market conditions and other factors. Effective June 13, 2011, the Company began to execute under this program pursuant to a securities purchase plan established by the Company under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b5-1.

During the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, the Company repurchased 9,778,525 shares of its Class A common stock at an average market price of $4.39 per share, for a total cost, including commissions, of approximately $43.1 million, bringing the total repurchased under this program of 10,660,825 shares of its Class A common stock at a total of $46.1 million.

During August 2011, the Company repurchased 2,314,957 additional shares of its Class A common stock at an average market price of $4.57 per share, for a total cost, including commissions, of approximately $10.6 million, completing the stock repurchase program.

Effective August 16, 2011, the Company retired 24,242,219 shares of its Class A common stock held in treasury. In accordance with Delaware law and the terms of the Company’s certificate of incorporation, upon retirement, such treasury shares resumed the status of authorized and unissued shares of Company common stock.

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

~~Introduction~~

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations should be read in conjunction with our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto. The following discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include statements that are predictive in nature, which depend upon or refer to future events or conditions, and/or which include words such as “believes,” “plans,” “intends,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” ~~“expects”~~“expects,” “may,” “will,” or similar expressions. In addition, any statements concerning future financial performance, ongoing ~~concept~~ strategies or prospects, and possible future actions, which may be provided by our management, are also forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and projections about future events and are subject to risks, uncertainties, and assumptions about ~~our company,~~the Company, economic and market factors and the industry in which we do business, among other things. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and we undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Actual events and results may differ materially from those expressed or forecasted in forward-looking statements due to a number of factors. Factors that could cause our actual performance, future results and actions to differ materially from any forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, those discussed in “Risk Factors” included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January ~~30, 2010,~~29, 2011, and elsewhere in this Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q.

All references to “we,” “our,” “us,” and “the Company” in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q mean The Wet Seal, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries.

Executive Overview

We are a national specialty retailer operating stores selling fashionable and contemporary apparel and accessory items designed for female customers aged 13 to 35 years old. We operate two nationwide, primarily mall-based, chains of retail stores under the names “Wet Seal” and “Arden B.” As of July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, we operated ~~508~~542 retail stores in 47 states and Puerto ~~Rico and District of Columbia.~~Rico. Our products can also be purchased ~~online.~~online through the websites of each of our operating segments, Wet Seal and Arden B.

We consider the following to be key performance indicators in evaluating our performance:

Comparable store sales—For purposes of measuring comparable store sales, sales include merchandise sales as well as membership fee revenues recognized under our Wet Seal division’s frequent buyer program during the applicable period. Stores are deemed comparable stores on the first day of the month following the one-year anniversary of their opening or significant remodel/relocation, which we define to be a square footage increase or decrease of at least 20%. Stores that are remodeled or relocated with a resulting square footage change of less than 20% are maintained in the comparable store base with no interruption. However, stores that are closed for four or more days in a fiscal month, due to remodel, relocation or other reasons, are removed from the comparable store base for that fiscal month as well as for the comparable fiscal month in the following fiscal year. Comparable store sales results are important in achieving operating leverage on ~~certain~~ expenses such as store payroll, occupancy, depreciation and amortization, general and administrative expenses, and other costs that are at least partially fixed. Positive comparable store sales results generate greater operating leverage on expenses while negative comparable store sales results negatively affect operating leverage. Comparable store sales results also have a direct impact on our total net sales, cash, and working capital.

Average transaction counts—We consider the trend in the average number of sales transactions occurring in our stores to be a key performance metric. To the extent we are able to increase transaction counts in our stores that more than offset the decrease, if any, in the average dollar sale per transaction, we will generate increases in our comparable store sales.

Gross margins—We analyze the components of gross margin, specifically cumulative mark-on, markups, markdowns, shrink, buying costs, distribution costs, and store occupancy costs. Any inability to obtain acceptable levels of initial markups, a significant increase in our use of markdowns or in inventory shrink, or an inability to generate sufficient sales leverage on other components of cost of sales could have an adverse impact on our gross margin results and results of operations.

Operating income—We view operating income as a key indicator of our financial success. The key drivers of operating income are comparable store sales, gross margins, and the changes we experience in operating costs.

Cash flow and liquidity (working capital)—We evaluate cash flow from operations, liquidity and working capital to determine our short-term operational financing needs.

Business Segments

We operate two nationwide, primarily mall-based, chains of retail stores under the names “Wet Seal” and “Arden ~~B”.~~B.” Although the two operating segments have many similarities in their products, production processes, distribution methods, and regulatory environment, there are differences in most of these areas and distinct differences in their economic characteristics. As a result, we consider these segments to be two distinct reportable segments.

Wet Seal. Wet Seal is a junior apparel brand for teenage girls who seek trend-focused and value-competitive clothing, with a target customer age range of 13 to 19 years old. Wet Seal seeks to provide its customer base with a balance of affordably priced, fashionable and fashion basic apparel and accessories. ~~Wet Seal stores average approximately 3,900 square feet in size. As of July 31, 2010, we operated 432 Wet Seal stores.~~

Arden B. Arden B is a fashion brand at value price points for the ~~feminine~~ contemporary woman. Arden B targets customers aged 25 to 35 years old and seeks to deliver contemporary collections of fashion and fashion basic separates and accessories for various aspects of the customers’ lifestyles. ~~Arden B stores average approximately 3,100 square feet in size. As of July 31, 2010, we operated 76 Arden B stores.~~

We maintain a Web-based store located atwww.wetseal.com, offering Wet Seal merchandise comparable to that carried in our stores, to customers over the ~~internet.~~Internet. We also maintain a Web-based store located atwww.ardenb.com, offering Arden B merchandise comparable to that carried in our stores, to customers over the ~~internet.~~Internet. Our online stores are designed to serve as an extension of the in-store experience and offer a wide selection of merchandise, ~~which helps expand~~with the goal of expanding both online and in-store sales. Internet operations for both Wet Seal and Arden B are included in their respective operating segments. In fiscal 2009, 2008, and 2007, we experienced rapid growth in both visitor traffic and our online sales, and we willWe continue to develop our Wet Seal and Arden B websites to increase their effectiveness in marketing our brands. We do not consider our Web-based business to be a distinct reportable segment. The Wet Seal and Arden B reportable segments include, in addition to data from their respective stores, data from their respective Internet operations.

See Note 7 of the notes to condensed consolidated financial statements for financial information regarding segment reporting, which information is incorporated herein by reference.

Current Trends and Outlook

We ~~currently operate~~continued to experience improvement in ~~a challenging~~our financial results in the second quarter of fiscal 2011. However, the overall retail environment continues to be volatile, driven by several factors, including ~~disruptions~~uncertainty regarding the economy, the lack of significant improvement in the U.S. housing ~~and financial markets~~market and high unemployment rates across all regions of the U.S. ~~Beginning in the fourth calendar quarter of 2008 and continuing through the second calendar quarter of 2009, U.S. gross domestic product decreased on a year-over-year basis.~~ Although U.S. gross domestic product has shown ~~improvement~~growth since the third calendar quarter of 2009, the increases have been modest, unemployment rates remain high in the teen segment and throughout the U.S. overall, and we continue to experience a volatile, and generally weak, retail environment. In addition, we began to experience increased sourcing costs in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010 and have seen further cost increases through second quarter of fiscal 2011 as a result of rising commodity prices, primarily for cotton, increased labor costs due to labor shortages in China, from which a majority of our merchandise is sourced, and increased fuel costs. We expect these sourcing cost pressures to continue in the second half of fiscal 2011. The rising value of the currency in China relative to the U.S. dollar may also have a further impact on future product costs.

Our ~~operating~~ performance is ~~susceptible~~subject to ~~these~~ general economic conditions ~~which have impacted~~and their impact on levels of consumer confidence and consumer spending. Consumer purchases of discretionary ~~consumer spending~~items, including our merchandise, generally decline during periods when disposable income is adversely affected or there is economic uncertainty. As a result of the continued difficult economic conditions, we may face risks that will impact many facets of our operations, including, among other things, the ability of one or more of our vendors to deliver their merchandise in a timely manner or otherwise meet their obligations to us. Although we believe we are sufficiently prepared and financially strong enough to endure continued poor economic conditions in the U.S. ~~Although~~and world economic markets, if such conditions become more volatile, or if they deteriorate further, our ~~operating performance improved for the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, it declined~~business, financial condition, and results of operations may be adversely affected.

Our comparable store sales increased 6.0% during the 13 weeks ended July ~~31, 2010, and these uncertain and volatile conditions could adversely affect our ability to sustain or further improve our operating performance.~~

~~Our~~30, 2011, driven by a 6.2% comparable store sales ~~decreased 4.3% for the 13 weeks ended July 31, 2010, driven by a 4.3% comparable store sales decrease~~increase in our Wet Seal division and a ~~4.5%~~5.0% comparable store sales ~~decrease~~increase in our Arden B division. The Wet Seal ~~division~~division’s comparable store sales ~~decrease~~increase was primarily driven ~~by a decrease in transaction volume, partially offset~~ by an increase in average dollar ~~sales. Directionally, the shifts~~sale per transaction, driven by an increase in units purchased per customer and a slight increase in average unit selling price, partially offset by a slight decrease in transaction volume and average unit retail metrics were in line with our expectations and resulted from our planned merchandise content shift at Wet Seal more towards apparel and away from lower-priced accessories relative to the prior year quarter.volume. The Arden B division comparable store sales ~~decrease~~increase was primarily driven by ~~declines~~an increase in its average dollar sale per transaction, driven by an increase in average unit selling price, ~~and transaction volume,~~ partially offset by ~~an increase~~a decline in units purchased per ~~customer.~~customer, and a slight decline in transaction volume. Our online sales declined 13.4% during the 13 weeks ended July 30, 2011, from the prior year as we implemented an initiative to reduce promotional levels and rebalance inventories more toward regular price versus clearance items in the online channel in an effort to better align online presentation with that of the stores. In the first half of August, during the important early weeks of back-to-school, we continue to experience mid-single digit positive comparable store sales on a consolidated basis.

We made progress on several key initiatives ~~since the end of fiscal 2009. Although we experienced negative comparable store sales declines~~ during the second quarter of fiscal ~~2010, primarily related to weak denim business at Wet Seal, we~~2011. We achieved merchandise margin improvement versus the prior year in the Wet Seal division due to ~~the~~reduced promotional markdowns as a result of what we believe to be an improved merchandise assortment and clearer promotional messaging in the stores, as well as a shift in sales mix ~~in tops, activewear and~~toward jewelry and ~~the use of our markdown optimization system.~~ other accessories that generate higher merchandise margins.

Arden B ~~continued to generate stable and strong merchandise margins in~~experienced higher inventory shrink results offset by lower overall markdown levels during the second quarter of fiscal ~~2010 due to strong performance~~2011 versus the prior year, resulting in ~~denim, accessories, related separates and knit tops. In addition,~~a slight decline in merchandise margin performance. We believe that we ~~continue to maintain slightly higher inventory levels~~are well positioned within our dress business at Arden B and that Arden B is a key dress destination for our customers. We expect to be well positioned in this category throughout fiscal 2011 to maximize sales opportunity.

Our top near-term strategic priority is to drive sales productivity improvement in our stores. To support sales productivity growth, we have established specific initiatives, including developing a culture of customer obsession, understanding and redefining our brands, evaluating our store designs to support ~~continued~~our brands and enhance our customers’ shopping experience and focusing on increasing store personnel productivity through new training programs and streamlined operational tasks. Higher store productivity would allow us to attain higher positive comparable store sales ~~growth under~~growth. Other strategic priorities include improving upon Wet Seal merchandise margins, building upon the Arden B business to allow it to reach its full potential, and expanding our ~~new low-price model.~~ existing retail store base and online businesses. We are also focused on improving gross margins by optimizing sourcing of merchandise, enhancing our inventory planning and allocation functions and improving supply chain efficiency through better coordination among and within our vendor base, internal distribution and store operation organizations.

Store Openings and Closures

We continued ~~with~~to execute our Wet Seal store ~~expansion~~growth strategy by opening 11thirteen new Wet Seal stores and closing only three Wet Seal stores in the ~~second fiscal quarter~~first half of ~~2010 and are on track to open a net 25 stores for the year.~~2011. We ~~also~~currently plan to open 6028 to 30 Wet Seal stores in fiscal 2011 with a focus on malls and to a lesser extent, off-mall power ~~centers in select markets throughout the country~~center locations, and ~~on malls in which we previously had highly productive~~plan to close seven to ten Wet Seal ~~stores. We expect to open a net 3 Arden B~~ stores in fiscal ~~2010.~~ 2011 upon certain lease expirations.

We ~~are~~ also ~~working on plans for continued moderate growth of~~currently intend to continue growing the Arden B store base conservatively, with approximately four new stores and one store closure planned in fiscal 2011. ~~Lastly, we plan to~~

~~immediately increase our investment in our e-commerce inventories, marketing and team infrastructure to drive more aggressive sales growth online.~~

Our operating performance since fiscal 2005 has resulted in increased liquidity and improved credit standing with suppliers. However, we may not generate increases in comparable store sales or may be unsuccessful in executing some or all of our business strategy. If our comparable store sales drop significantly for an extended period of time, or we falter in execution of our business strategy, we may not achieve our financial performance goals, which could impact our results of operations and operating cash flow.

~~Store Openings and Closures~~

During the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, we opened 12 and closed four Wet Seal stores and we closed four Arden B stores, supporting our plan to exit locations that are not productive and in which we do not see strong potential for improvement.

~~We expect to open a net of 25 Wet Seal stores and three Arden B stores, contingent upon lease negotiations, during fiscal 2010.~~

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

Our condensed consolidated financial statements were prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and the instructions to Form 10-Q and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires the appropriate application of ~~certain~~ accounting policies, some of which require us to make estimates and assumptions about future events and their impact on amounts reported in our condensed consolidated financial statements. Since future events and their impact cannot be determined with absolute certainty, the actual results will inevitably differ from our estimates.

We believe the application of our accounting policies, and the estimates inherently required therein, are reasonable. Our accounting policies and estimates are reevaluated on an ongoing basis, and adjustments are made when facts and circumstances dictate a change. Our accounting policies are more fully described in Note 1 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January ~~30, 2010.~~29, 2011.

The policies and estimates discussed below involve the selection or application of alternative accounting policies that are material to our condensed consolidated financial statements. Management has discussed the development and selection of these critical accounting policies and estimates with the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors.

We have certain accounting policies that require more significant management judgment and estimates than others. These include our accounting policies with respect to revenue recognition, merchandise inventories, long-lived assets, stock-based compensation, accounting for income taxes and insurance reserves. There have been no significant additions to or modifications of the application of the critical accounting policies described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January ~~30, 2010.~~29, 2011. The following updates the Form 10-K discussions of our critical accounting policies for short-term investments, long lived assets and accounting for income taxes.

Short-Term Investments

Our short-term investments consist of interest-bearing corporate bonds that are guaranteed by the U.S. Government under the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, have maturities that are less than one year and are carried at amortized cost plus accrued income. Our short-term investments are carried at amortized cost due to our intent to hold to maturity. Short-term investments on the condensed consolidated balance sheet were $38.2 million at July 30, 2011. Any unrealized gains or losses on held-to-maturity investments are considered temporary and are not recorded unless an other than temporary impairment has occurred. Factors considered that could result in the necessity to impair include intention to sell, more likely than not being required to sell the security before recovery of the security’s amortized cost basis and whether we expect to recover the entire amortized cost basis of the security. We have considered all impairment factors and have determined that an other than temporary impairment has not occurred as of July 30, 2011.

Long-Lived Assets

We evaluate the carrying value of long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of such assets may not be recoverable. Factors that are considered important that could result in the necessity to perform an impairment review include a current-period operating or cash flow loss combined with a history of operating or cash flow losses and a projection or forecast that indicates continuing losses or insufficient income associated with the realization of a long-lived asset or asset group. Other factors include a significant change in the manner of the use of the asset or a significant negative industry or economic trend. This evaluation is performed based on estimated undiscounted future cash flows from operating activities compared with the carrying value of the related assets. If the undiscounted future cash flows are less than the carrying value, an impairment loss is recognized, measured by the difference between the carrying value and the estimated fair value of the assets, based on discounted cash flows using our weighted average cost of ~~capital, with such estimated fair values determined using the best information available.~~capital. We have considered all relevant valuation techniques that could be obtained without undue cost and effort and have determined that the discounted cash flow approach continues to provide the most relevant and reliable means by which to determine fair value in this circumstance.

At least quarterly, we ~~assesses~~assess whether events or changes in circumstances have occurred that potentially indicate the carrying value of long-lived assets may not be recoverable. Our evaluations during the 13 and 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010, ~~and August 1, 2009,~~ indicated that operating losses or insufficient operating income existed at certain retail stores, with a projection that the operating losses or insufficient operating income for those locations would likely continue. As such, we recorded non-cash charges of $1.1 million, $1.3 million, $1.0 million ~~$1.1 million, $1.6 million~~ and ~~$1.6~~$1.1 million during the 13 and 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010, ~~and August 1, 2009,~~ respectively, within asset impairment in the condensed consolidated statements of operations, to write down the carrying values of these stores’ long-lived assets to their estimated fair values.

The estimation of future cash flows from operating activities requires significant estimates of factors that include future sales growth and gross margin performance. If our sales growth, gross margin performance or other estimated operating results are not achieved at or above our forecasted level, or inflation exceeds our forecast and we are unable to recover such costs through price increases, the carrying value of certain of our retail stores may prove to be unrecoverable and we may incur additional impairment charges in the future.

Accounting for Income Taxes

During fiscal 2010, we determined we previously had interpreted federal tax rules incorrectly pertaining to expiration of charitable contribution carry forwards available to offset future taxable income. We also identified certain other minor errors in our deferred income taxes. As a result, we had overstated our net deferred tax assets and understated our accumulated deficit balance by approximately $6.6 million as of the second quarter ended July 31, 2010. We have corrected deferred tax assets and stockholders’ equity on our accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of July 31, 2010, from amounts previously reported.

We began fiscal ~~2010~~2011 with approximately ~~$116.6~~$93.5 million of federal net operating loss ~~carryforwards (NOLs)~~(“NOL”) carry forwards available to offset taxable income in fiscal ~~2010~~2011 and thereafter, subject to certain annual limitations based on the provisions of Section 382 of the Internal Revenue ~~Code (“Section 382”).~~Code.

~~For the 13 weeks ended July 31, 2010, our~~Our effective income tax rate ~~was approximately 39%, representing the rate that we currently expect to incur for the remainder of fiscal 2010. The effective rate of approximately 51%~~ for the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010 is higher than the expected rate for future periods due to $2.8 million in interest charges incurred in the first fiscal quarter upon the conversion of the our remaining Secured Convertible Notes (the “Notes”) and Series C Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Preferred Stock”)30, 2011, was approximately 39%, which ~~are not tax-deductible. The impact of these non-deductible charges on the~~reflects our expected effective income tax rate ~~in the first~~for fiscal ~~quarter and the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, was approximately 16% and 12%, respectively.~~

2011. Due to our expected utilization of federal and state NOL carry forwards during fiscal ~~2010,~~2011, we anticipate cash income taxes for the fiscal year will be approximately 2%4.5% of pre-tax income, representing the portion of federal and state alternative minimum taxes and state regular income taxes that cannot be offset by NOLs. The difference between the effective income tax rate and the anticipated cash income taxes is recorded as a non-cash provision for deferred incomes taxes.

Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements and New Accounting Pronouncements Not Yet Adopted

In ~~October 2009,~~January 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ~~(“FASB”~~(the “FASB”) issued guidance related to revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables. Under the new guidance, when vendor specific objective evidence or third party evidence for deliverables in an arrangement cannot be determined, a best estimate of the selling price is required to separate deliverables and allocate arrangement consideration using the relative selling price method. Such guidance is to be applied on a prospective basis for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010, with early adoption permitted. We do not believe adoption of this guidance will have any effect on our condensed consolidated financial statements.

~~In January 2010, the FASB~~ issued guidance and clarifications for improving disclosures about fair value measurements. This guidance requires enhanced disclosures regarding transfers in and out of the levels within the fair value hierarchy. Separate disclosures are required for transfers in and out of Level 1 and 2 fair value measurements, and the reasons for the transfers must be disclosed. In the reconciliation for Level 3 fair value measurements, separate disclosures are required for purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements on a gross basis. The new disclosures and clarifications of existing disclosures ~~are~~were effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2009, except for the disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements in the roll forward of activity in Level 3 fair value measurements, which ~~are~~were effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2010. Effective January 31, 2010, we adopted the new and updated guidance for disclosures, aside from ~~those~~that deferred to periods after December 15, 2010, and itthis did not significantly impact our ~~condensed~~ consolidated financial statements. We adopted the remaining guidance on disclosures effective January 30, 2011, and this did not significantly impact our consolidated financial statements.

In May 2011, the FASB issued guidance on the application of fair value accounting where its use is already required or permitted by other standards within GAAP. The amendments change the wording used to describe many of the requirements in GAAP for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. Amendments include those that clarify the FASB’s intent about the application of existing fair value measurement and disclosure requirements, and change a particular principle or requirement for measuring fair value or for disclosing information about fair value measurements. For many of the requirements, the FASB does not intend for the amendments to result in a change in the application of the requirements. This guidance is effective during interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. We do not believe the adoption of ~~the remaining disclosure~~this guidance will have any effect on our ~~condensed~~ consolidated financial statements.

In June 2011, the FASB issued amended guidance on the presentation of comprehensive income. The amendments provide an entity with an option to present the total of comprehensive income, the components of net income and the components of other comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. In both options, an entity is required to present each component of net income along with total net income, each component of other comprehensive income along with a total for other comprehensive income, and a total amount for comprehensive income. The guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years beginning after December 15, 2011 and should be applied on a retrospective basis. We have not yet selected which presentation option we will apply. The adoption of this guidance will effect the presentation of our consolidated financial statements.

Results of Operations

The following table sets forth selected condensed consolidated statements of operations data as a percentage of net sales for the ~~13-week and 26-week~~ periods indicated. The discussion that follows should be read in conjunction with the table below:


	As a Percentage of Net Sales 13 Weeks Ended		As a Percentage of Net Sales 26 Weeks Ended		As a Percentage of Net Sales 13 Weeks Ended						As a Percentage of Net Sales 26 Weeks Ended
	July 31, 2010	August 1, 2009	July 31, 2010	August 1, 2009	July 30, 2011			July 31, 2010			July 30, 2011			July 31, 2010
Net sales	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%		100.0	%		100.0	%		100.0	%		100.0	%
Cost of sales	70.8	71.3	69.0	70.8		69.0			70.8			67.3			69.0

Gross margin	29.2	28.7	31.0	29.2		31.0			29.2			32.7			31.0
Selling, general, and administrative expenses	26.4	25.2	25.9	25.4		28.0			26.4			26.8			25.9
Asset impairment	0.8	1.1	0.4	0.6		0.8			0.8			0.4			0.4

Operating income	2.0	2.4	4.7	3.2		2.2			2.0			5.5			4.7
Interest income (expense), net	0.0	(0.1)	(1.1)	(0.1)		0.0			0.0			0.0			(1.1	)

Income before provision for income taxes	2.0	2.3	3.6	3.1		2.2			2.0			5.5			3.6
Provision for income taxes	0.8	0.0	1.8	0.1		0.7			0.8			2.2			1.8

Net income	1.2%	2.3%	1.8%	3.0%		1.5	%		1.2	%		3.3	%		1.8	%

Thirteen Weeks Ended July 30, 2011, Compared to Thirteen Weeks Ended July 31, 2010 ~~Compared to Thirteen Weeks Ended August 1, 2009~~

Net sales


	13 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010		Change From Prior Fiscal Period				13 Weeks Ended August 1, 2009		13 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011		Change From Prior Fiscal Period				13 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010
			($ in millions)								($ in millions)
Net sales	$	131.5	$	(4.9)	(3.5)	%	$	136.4	$	148.8	$	17.3	13.1	%	$	131.5
Comparable store sales decrease					(4.3)	%
Comparable store sales increase													6.0	%

Net sales for the 13 weeks ended July ~~31, 2010, decreased~~30, 2011, increased primarily as a result of the following:

~~A decrease~~An increase of ~~4.3%~~6.0% in comparable store sales resulting from ~~an 11.4% decrease in comparable store average transaction counts, partially offset by~~ a ~~7.5%~~7.3% increase in comparable store average dollar sales per ~~transaction.~~transaction, partially offset by a 0.4% decrease in comparable store average transactions. Comparable store average dollar sales per transaction increased mainly due to ~~an 10.4%~~a 5.7% increase ~~in our average unit retail prices, partially offset by a 2.2% decrease~~ in the number of units purchased per customer ~~primarily as~~and a ~~result of a merchandise content shift at Wet Seal towards apparel and away from lower-priced accessories, as compared to the prior year; and~~0.8% increase in average unit retail prices.

~~The prior year included an~~An increase in number of ~~$1.2 million~~stores open, from 508 stores as of July 31, 2010, to 542 stores as of July 30, 2011.

However, the increase in net sales ~~resulting from a change in estimated breakage for unredeemed gift cards, gift certificates and store credits remaining outstanding for more than two years from their respective issuance dates.~~

~~However, these factors were~~was partially offset by:

~~An increase~~A decrease of ~~$0.5~~$1.2 million in net sales for our internet business compared to the prior year, which is not a factor in calculating our comparable store ~~sales; and~~sales.

~~An increase in number of stores open, from 496 stores as of August 1, 2009, to 508 stores as of July 31, 2010.~~

Cost of sales


	13 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010			Change From Prior Fiscal Period					13 Weeks Ended August 1, 2009			13 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011			Change From Prior Fiscal Period				13 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010
				($ in millions)											($ in millions)
Cost of sales	$	93.2		$	(4.0	)	(4.2	)%	$	97.2		$	102.7		$	9.5	10.2	%	$	93.2
Percentage of net sales		70.8	%				(0.5	)%		71.3	%		69.0	%			(1.8	)%		70.8	%

Cost of sales includes the cost of merchandise; markdowns; inventory shortages; inventory valuation adjustments; inbound freight; payroll expenses associated with buying, planning and allocation; processing, receiving and other warehouse costs; ~~rent;~~rent and other occupancy costs; and depreciation and amortization expense associated with our stores and distribution center.

Cost of sales as a percentage of net sales decreased due primarily to (i) an increase in merchandise margin as a result of ~~higher initial markup~~lower markdown rates and favorable inventory shrink results in ~~both divisions,~~the Wet Seal division, partially offset by ~~an increase~~higher inventory shrink results in the ~~markdown rate for both divisions, as compared to the prior year. Additionally, cost of sales as~~Arden B division, (ii) a percentage of sales was favorably impacted due to a reduction in buying, planning and allocation costs as a result of our open Wet Seal division chief merchandise officer position and a reduction in incentive bonuses due to declining performance results. Cost of sales as a percentage of net sales and in absolute dollar amount was negatively impacted by an increase in occupancy cost due to the deleveraging effect from our decrease in comparable stores sales, as well as an increase in number of stores open, from 496 stores as of August 1, 2009, to 508 stores as of July 31, 2010. Cost of sales was also negatively impacted by an increase in distribution costs due to the prior year including a loss on disposal charge as a result of equipment replaced by ~~our~~a new merchandise ~~sorter~~sorting system and ~~an increase~~a decrease in temporary labor as a result of efficiencies gained from the merchandise sorting system, and (iii) the leveraging effect on occupancy costs of positive comparable store sales. Cost of sales was negatively impacted by an increase in ~~units shipped~~buying costs as the current year includes accrual of bonus expenses due to improved performance relative to incentive targets and the prior year included benefits related to reversal of bonus accruals due to declining performance and to stock compensation due to forfeitures.

Cost of sales increased primarily due to the 13.1% increase in net sales and an increase in occupancy cost as a ~~variation~~result of the increase in ~~mix~~number of ~~merchandise.~~stores.

Selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A)


	13 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010			Change From Prior Fiscal Period				13 Weeks Ended August 1, 2009			13 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011			Change From Prior Fiscal Period				13 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010
				($ in millions)										($ in millions)
Selling, general, and administrative expenses	$	34.7		$	0.4	1.2	%	$	34.3		$	41.7		$	7.0	20.0	%	$	34.7
Percentage of net sales		26.4	%			1.2	%		25.2	%		28.0	%			1.6	%		26.4	%

Our SG&A expenses are comprised of two components. Selling expenses include store and field support costs, including personnel, advertising and merchandise delivery costs as well as ~~internet processing~~online sales order fulfillment costs. General and administrative expenses include the cost of corporate functions such as executives, legal, finance and accounting, information systems, e-commerce management, human resources, real estate and construction, loss prevention and other centralized services.

Selling expenses ~~decreased less than $0.1~~increased approximately $4.5 million from the prior year to ~~$28.2~~$32.7 million. As a percentage of net sales, selling expense was ~~21.5%~~22.0% of net sales, or 8050 basis points higher ~~as a percentage of net sales,~~ than a year ago.

The following contributed to the current year ~~decrease~~increase in selling expenses:

A ~~$0.2~~$3.5 million ~~decrease~~increase in payroll and benefits costs as a result of ~~decreased~~increased sales volume; ~~and~~

A ~~$0.2~~$0.4 million ~~decrease~~increase in ~~credit card~~merchandise delivery costs due to increased unit volume;

A $0.3 million increase in store supplies due to increased sales volume and ~~bad debt charges as a result~~replenishment of ~~decreased sales volume.~~low store stock levels;

~~However, the decreases in selling expenses were partially offset by the following increases:~~

A $0.2 million increase in ~~advertising and marketing expenditures~~credit card fees due to ~~an increase~~increased sales volume, partially offset by a decline in ~~in-store signage at both divisions, an increase in direct marketing at our Wet Seal division and an increase in our internet advertising, primarily due~~average processing fees as a percent to ~~our increased presence on Facebook;~~sales; and

A $0.1 million ~~increase in internet production and ordering costs due to increased internet sales volume.~~

~~The increase in selling expenses, as a percentage of~~ net ~~sales, was primarily due to the unfavorable deleveraging effect on store and field payroll costs and~~ increase in advertising and marketing expenditures ~~as noted above.~~driven by a market research study being conducted to gain a better understanding of the Wet Seal and Arden B customer, offset by a decrease in internet marketing expenditures.

General and administrative expenses increased approximately ~~$0.4~~$2.5 million from the prior year to ~~$6.5~~$9.0 million. As a percentage of net sales, general and administrative expenses were ~~4.9%~~6.0%, or 40100 basis points higher than a year ago.

The following contributed to the current year increase in general and administrative expenses:

A ~~$0.2~~$1.2 million increase in corporate ~~wages;~~incentive bonuses due to improved operating results, relative to incentive targets, in the current year, versus a reversal of bonus accruals due to declining performance relative to incentive targets in the prior year;

A ~~$0.3~~$0.7 million increase in ~~legal~~stock compensation expense primarily due to an increase in executive stock compensation;

A $0.5 million increase in corporate wages primarily due to a new chief operating officer position and an increased wage base for our newly appointed chief executive officer, and an increase in internet wages due to growth in our internet infrastructure to support efforts to increase sales volume;

A $0.2 million increase in depreciation due to our recently implemented retail merchandising system;

A $0.1 million increase in recruiting fees ~~associated with various litigation matters;~~related to relocation costs for our new chief executive officer and chief operating officer; and

A $0.1 million net increase in other general and administrative expenses.

However, the increases in general and administrative expenses were partially offset by the following ~~decreases:~~decrease:

A ~~$0.2~~$0.3 million decrease in ~~stock-based compensation, primarily due to higher forfeitures as compared to the prior year.~~legal fees associated with various legal matters.

Asset impairment


	13 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010			Change From Prior Fiscal Period					13 Weeks Ended August 1, 2009		13 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011			Change From Prior Fiscal Period				13 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010
	($ in millions)										($ in millions)
Asset impairment	$	1.0		$	(0.6	)	(32.9	)%	$	1.6	$	1.1		$	0.1	1.5	%	$	1.0
Percentage of net sales		0.8	%				(0.3	)%		1.1%		0.8	%			0.0	%		0.8	%

Based on our quarterly assessments of the carrying value of long-lived assets, during the 13 weeks ended July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, and August 1, 2009, we identified certain retail stores with carrying values of their assets, including leasehold improvements, furniture, fixtures and equipment, in excess of such stores’ respective forecasted undiscounted cash flows. Accordingly, we reduced their respective carrying values to their estimated fair market values, resulting in non-cash charges of $1.0 million and $1.6 million, respectively.

~~Interest income (expense), net~~

   13 Weeks
Ended
July 31, 2010 Change From
Prior Fiscal Period 13 Weeks
Ended
August 1, 2009
   ($ in millions)
Interest income (expense), net
   $ 0.1    $ 0.2    152.6 % $ (0.1)
Percentage of net sales
   0.0 %    0.1 % (0.1) %

~~We generated interest income, net, of $0.1 million in the 13 weeks ended~~ July 31, 2010, ~~comprised of:~~

~~Interest income of less than $0.1 million primarily from investments in cash and cash equivalents.~~

~~We incurred a nominal amount of interest expense, net, in the 13 weeks ended August 1, 2009, comprised of:~~

Non-cash interest expense of $0.2 million with respect to our Notes, comprised primarily of discount amortization and, to a lesser extent, annual interest at 3.76%, which we elected to add to principal; partially offset by

~~Interest income of less than $0.1 million from investments in cash and cash equivalents.~~

~~Provision for income taxes~~

   13 Weeks
Ended
July 31, 2010    Change From
Prior Fiscal Period 13 Weeks
Ended
August 1, 2009
      ($ in millions)
Provision for income taxes
   $ 1.0    $     0.9    1,211.3 % $ 0.1

In the second quarter of fiscal 2010, our effective income tax rate was approximately 39%, which is the rate we currently expect to incur for the remainder of the fiscal year. We incurred a higher effective income tax rate than we had in 2009 primarily as a result of the reversal of our deferred tax asset valuation allowance at the end of fiscal 2009.

Due to our expected utilization of federal and state NOL carry forwards during fiscal 2010, we anticipate cash income taxes for the fiscal year will only be approximately 2% of pre-tax income, representing the portion of federal and state

alternative minimum taxes that cannot be offset by NOLs. The difference between the effective income tax rate and the anticipated cash income taxes is recorded as a non-cash provision for deferred incomes taxes.

~~Segment Information~~

The following is a discussion of the operating results of our business segments. We consider each of our operating divisions to be a segment. In the tables below, Wet Seal and Arden B reportable segments include data from their respective stores and internet operations. Operating segment results include net sales, cost of sales, asset impairment and other direct store and field management expenses, with no allocation of corporate overhead or interest income or expense.

~~Wet Seal:~~

(In thousands, except sales per square foot and store count data)
   13 Weeks
Ended
July 31, 2010           13 Weeks
Ended
August 1, 2009
Net sales
   $ 108,875            $     111,517
Percentage of consolidated net sales
   83%         82%
Comparable store sales percentage decrease compared to the prior year fiscal quarter
   (4.3)%       (11.9)%
Operating income
   $ 6,219            $ 6,043
Sales per square foot
   $ 61            $ 64
Number of stores as of quarter end
   432            415
Square footage as of quarter end
   1,709            1,636

Wet Seal comparable stores sales decreased 4.3% during the 13 weeks ended July 31, 2010, compared to a prior year quarter decrease of 11.9%. The decrease during the 13 weeks ended July 31, 2010, was due primarily to a 12.2% decrease in comparable store average transactions, partially offset by an increase of 8.4% in average dollar sales per transaction. The increase in comparable store average dollar sales per transaction resulted from an 11.5% increase in our average unit retail prices, partially offset by a 2.2% decrease in units purchased per customer, as a result of a merchandise content shift towards apparel and away from lower-priced accessories. The net sales decrease was attributable to the comparable store sales decline and the prior year quarter including $0.8 million of additional net sales resulting from a change in estimated breakage, partially offset by a $0.4 million increase in net sales in our internet business and the increase in the number of stores compared to the prior year.

Wet Seal’s operating income increased to 5.7% of net sales during the 13 weeks ended July 31, 2010, from 5.4% of net sales during the 13 weeks ended August 1, 2009. The increase in operating income, as a percentage of sales, was due primarily to an increase in merchandise margin as a result of higher initial markup rates and favorable spring physical inventory shrink results, a decrease in buying, planning and allocation costs primarily due to our open chief merchandise officer position and a reduction in stock compensation expense as a result of higher forfeiture adjustments. Additionally, during the 13 weeks ended July 31, 2010, and the 13 weeks ended August 1, 2009, operating income included asset impairment charges of $1.0 million and $1.6 million, respectively, to write down the carrying value of long-lived assets that were identified during our quarterly impairment evaluations. The increase for the 13 weeks ended August 1, 2009 was partially offset by a $0.8 million of breakage benefit resulting from a change in estimated breakage for unredeemed gift cards, gift certificates and store credits remaining outstanding more than two years from their respective issuance dates.

~~Arden B:~~

(In thousands, except sales per square foot and store count data )
   13 Weeks
Ended
July 31, 2010     13 Weeks
Ended
August 1, 2009
Net sales
   $   22,666    $ 24,849
Percentage of consolidated net sales
   17 % 18%
Comparable store sales percentage decrease compared to the prior year fiscal quarter
   (4.5 )% (4.1)%
Operating income
   $ 2,676    $ 3,253
Sales per square foot
   $ 84    $ 86
Number of stores as of quarter end
   76    81
Square footage as of quarter end
   230    247

Arden B comparable stores sales decreased 4.5% during the 13 weeks ended July 31, 2010, compared to a prior year quarter decrease of 4.1%. The decrease during the 13 weeks ended July 31, 2010, was due primarily to a 2.6% decrease in comparable store average transactions and a 1.9% decrease in comparable store average dollar sales per transaction. The decrease in the average dollar sale per transaction resulted from a 4.9% decline in our average unit retail prices, partially offset by a 2.8% increase in units purchased per customer. The net sales decrease was attributable to the comparable store sales decrease and a decrease in the number of stores compared to the prior year, partially offset by a $0.2 million increase in net sales in our internet business.

Arden B generated operating income of 11.8% of net sales during the 13 weeks ended July 31, 2010, compared to operating income of 13.1% of net sales during the 13 weeks ended August 1, 2009. The decrease in operating results was due primarily to an increase in occupancy costs as a percentage of net sales as the prior year included a rent benefit for early termination of store leases and the deleveraging effect from the decrease in comparable store sales, and an increase in internet production ordering costs as a result of increased net sales in our internet business compared to the prior year. Additionally, operating income for the 13 weeks ended August 1, 2009, included $0.4 million of breakage benefit resulting from a change in estimated breakage for unredeemed gift cards, gift certificates and store credits remaining outstanding more than two years from their respective issuance dates.

~~Twenty-Six Weeks Ended July 31, 2010, Compared to Twenty-Six Weeks Ended August 1, 2009~~

~~Net sales~~

   26 Weeks
Ended
July 31, 2010    Change From
Prior Fiscal Period 26 Weeks
Ended
August 1, 2009
      ($ in millions)
Net sales
   $ 269.3    $ 0.9    0.3 % $ 268.4
Comparable store sales decrease
         (1.1 )%

~~Net sales for the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, increased primarily as a result of the following:~~

~~An increase of $1.7 million in net sales for our internet business compared to the prior year, which is not a factor in calculating our comparable store sales; and~~

~~An increase in number of stores open, from 496 stores as of August 1, 2009, to 508 stores as of July 31, 2010.~~

~~However, these factors were partially offset by:~~

A decrease of 1.1% in comparable store sales resulting from an 8.5% decrease in comparable store average transaction counts, partially offset by an 8.3% increase in comparable store average dollar sales per transaction. Comparable store average dollar sales per transaction increased mainly due to an 11.0% increase in our average unit retail prices, partially offset by a 2.6% decrease in the number of units purchased per customer, as compared to the prior year; and

The prior year included an increase of $1.2 million in net sales resulting from a change in estimated breakage for unredeemed gift cards, gift certificates and store credits remaining outstanding for more than two years from their respective issuance dates.

~~Cost of sales~~

   26 Weeks
Ended
July 31, 2010 Change From
Prior Fiscal Period 26 Weeks
Ended
August 1, 2009
   ($ in millions)
Cost of sales
   $ 185.8    $ (4.2 ) (2.2 )% $ 190.0
Percentage of net sales
   69.0 % (1.8 )% 70.8 %

Cost of sales as a percentage of net sales decreased due primarily to an increase in merchandise margin as a result of higher initial markup rates in both divisions and favorable spring physical inventory shrink results, as compared to the prior year, partially offset by an increase in markdown rates due to the promotional environment. Cost of sales as a percentage of sales and absolute dollar amount was negatively impacted due an increase in occupancy cost due to the deleveraging effect from our comparable stores sales decrease, as well as an increase in number of stores open, from 496 stores as of August 1, 2009, to 508 stores as of July 31, 2010.

~~Selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A)~~

   26 Weeks
Ended
July 31, 2010 Change From
Prior Fiscal Period 26 Weeks
Ended
August 1, 2009
   ($ in millions)
Selling, general, and administrative expenses
   $ 69.8    $ 1.5    2.2 % $ 68.3
Percentage of net sales
   25.9 %    0.5 % 25.4 %

Selling expenses increased approximately $0.3 million from the prior year to $55.5 million. As a percentage of net sales, selling expense was 20.6% of net sales, or 10 basis points higher as a percentage of net sales as compared to a year ago.

~~The following contributed to the current year increase in selling expenses:~~

A $0.5 million increase in advertising and marketing expenditures due to an increase in in-store signage at both divisions, an increase in direct marketing at our Wet Seal division and an increase in our internet advertising, primarily due to our increased presence on Facebook;

~~A $0.3 million increase in internet production and ordering costs due to increased internet sales volume; and~~

~~A $0.1 million net increase in other selling expenses.~~

~~However, the increases in selling expenses were partially offset by the following decreases:~~

~~A $0.3 million decrease in bags and boxes usage;~~

~~A $0.2 million decrease in bad debt and bank charges; and~~

~~A $0.1 million decrease in payroll and benefits costs.~~

General and administrative expenses increased approximately $1.2 million from the prior year, to $14.3 million. As a percentage of net sales, general and administrative expenses were 5.3%, or 40 basis points higher, than a year ago.

~~The following contributed to the current year increase in general and administrative expenses:~~

~~A $0.4 million increase in legal fees associated with various litigation matters;~~

~~A $0.3 million increase in corporate wages;~~

~~A $0.1 million increase in corporate bonuses as the prior year included a greater benefit based on prior year’s financial performance relative to bonus targets;~~

~~A $0.1 million increase in stock-based compensation, as a result of higher forfeiture adjustments;~~

~~A $0.2 million increase in consulting fees due to timing of services performed and audit fees, compared to the prior year; and~~

~~A $0.2 million net increase in other general and administrative costs.~~

~~However, the increases in general and administrative expenses were partially offset by the following decrease:~~

~~A $0.1 million decrease in board of director fees due to fewer Board members as compared to the prior year.~~

~~Asset impairment~~

   26 Weeks
Ended
July 31, 2010 Change From
Prior Fiscal Period 26 Weeks
Ended
August 1, 2009
   ($ in millions)
Asset impairment
   $ 1.1    $ (0.5 ) (27.1 )% $ 1.6
Percentage of net sales
   0.4 % (0.2 )% 0.6 %

~~Based on our quarterly assessments of the carrying value of long-lived assets, during the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, and August 1, 2009,~~ we identified certain retail stores with carrying values of their assets, including leasehold improvements, furniture, fixtures and equipment, in excess of such stores’ respective forecasted undiscounted cash flows. Accordingly, we reduced their respective carrying values to their estimated fair market values, resulting in non-cash charges of $1.1 million and ~~$1.6~~$1.0 million, respectively.

Interest ~~expense,~~income (expense), net


	26 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010			Change From Prior Fiscal Period					26 Weeks Ended August 1, 2009			13 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011			Change From Prior Fiscal Period					13 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010
	($ in millions)											($ in millions)
Interest expense, net	$	(2.8	)	$	(2.7	)	(2,241.3	)%	$	(0.1	)
Interest income (expense), net												$	0.0		$	(0.1	)	63.3	%	$	0.1
Percentage of net sales		(1.1	)%				(1.0	)%		(0.1	)%		0.0	%				0.0	%		0.0	%

We generated interest income, net, of less than $0.1 million in the 13 weeks ended July 30, 2011, primarily from investments in cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments, and we generated interest income, net, of $0.1 million in the 13 weeks ended July 31, 2010, primarily from investments in cash and cash equivalents.

Provision for income taxes


	13 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011		Change From Prior Fiscal Period				13 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010
			($ in millions)
Provision for income taxes	$	1.1	$	0.1	9.5	%	$	1.0

Our effective income tax rate for the 13 weeks ended July 30, 2011, was approximately 34%, bringing our year-to-date effective income tax rate to 39%, which approximates our expected effective rate for fiscal 2011. Due to our expected utilization of federal and state NOL carry forwards during fiscal 2011, we anticipate cash income taxes for the fiscal year will be approximately 4.5% of pre-tax income, representing the portion of federal and state alternative minimum taxes and state regular income taxes that cannot be offset by NOLs. The difference between the effective income tax rate and the anticipated cash income taxes is recorded as a non-cash provision for deferred income taxes.

Segment Information

The following is a discussion of the operating results of our business segments. We consider each of our operating divisions to be a segment. In the tables below, Wet Seal and Arden B reportable segments include data from their respective stores and internet operations (internet operations is excluded from comparable store sales). Operating segment results include net sales, cost of sales, asset impairment and other direct store and field management expenses, with no allocation of corporate overhead or interest income or expense.

Wet Seal:


($ in thousands, except sales per square foot)	13 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011			13 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010
Net sales	$	125,033		$	108,875
Percentage of consolidated net sales		84	%		83	%
Comparable store sales percentage increase (decrease) compared to the prior year fiscal quarter		6.2	%		(4.3	)%

($ in thousands, except sales per square foot)
   13 Weeks
Ended
July 30, 2011    13 Weeks
Ended
July 31, 2010
Operating income
   $ 10,280       $ 6,219
Sales per square foot
   $ 65       $ 61
Number of stores as of quarter end
   460       432
Square footage as of quarter end
   1,832       1,709

The comparable store sales increase during the 13 weeks ended July 30, 2011, was due primarily to an increase of 7.6% in average dollar sales per transaction, partially offset by a decrease of 0.4% in comparable store average transactions. The increase in comparable store average dollar sales per transaction resulted from a 7.1% increase in units purchased per customer and a 0.3% increase in our average unit retail prices. The net sales increase was attributable to the comparable store sales increase and an increase in the number of stores compared to the prior year, partially offset by a $0.4 million decrease in net sales in our internet business.

Wet Seal’s operating income increased to 8.2% of net sales during the 13 weeks ended July 30, 2011, from 5.7% of net sales during the 13 weeks ended July 31, 2010. The increase in operating income, as a percentage of sales, was due primarily to an increase in merchandise margin as a result of lower markdown rates, a decrease in inventory shrink and a decrease in occupancy costs due to the leveraging effect of positive comparable store sales. Additionally, during the 13 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and the 13 weeks ended July 31, 2010, operating income included asset impairment charges of $0.6 million and $1.0 million, respectively, to write down the carrying value of long-lived assets that were identified during our quarterly impairment evaluation.

Arden B:


($ in thousands, except sales per square foot)	13 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011			13 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010
Net sales	$	23,737		$	22,666
Percentage of consolidated net sales		16	%		17	%
Comparable store sales percentage increase (decrease) compared to the prior year fiscal quarter		5.0	%		(4.5	)%
Operating income	$	1,449		$	2,676
Sales per square foot	$	85		$	84
Number of stores as of quarter end		82			76
Square footage as of quarter end		253			230

The comparable store sales increase during the 13 weeks ended July 30, 2011, was due to a 5.5% increase in comparable store average dollar sales per transaction, partially offset by a 0.5% decrease in comparable store average transactions. The increase in the average dollar sale per transaction resulted from a 13.1% increase in our average unit retail prices, partially offset by a 7.2% decrease in units purchased per customer. The net sales increase was attributable to the comparable store sales increase and an increase in the number of stores compared to the prior year, partially offset by a $0.7 million decrease in net sales in our internet business.

Arden B generated operating income of 6.1% of net sales during the 13 weeks ended July 30, 2011, compared to operating income of 11.8% of net sales during the 13 weeks ended July 31, 2010. This decrease was due primarily to an increase in occupancy costs as a percentage of net sales as the prior year included benefits related to the allocation of rents for gross rent deals and an increase in payroll and benefits costs as a result of increased operational activities and inefficiency in controlling labor hours. Additionally, during the 13 weeks ended July 30, 2011, operating income included asset impairment charges of $0.5 million to write down the carrying value of long-lived assets that were identified during our quarterly impairment evaluations.

Twenty-Six Weeks Ended July 30, 2011, Compared to Twenty-Six Weeks Ended July 31, 2010

Net sales


	26 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011		Change From Prior Fiscal Period				26 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010
			($ in millions)
Net sales	$	304.8	$	35.5	13.2	%	$	269.3
Comparable store sales increase					6.5	%

Net sales for the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, increased primarily as a result of the following:

An increase of 6.5% in comparable store sales resulting from a 5.3% increase in comparable store average dollar sales per transaction and a 1.7% increase in comparable store average transactions. Comparable store average dollar sales per transaction increased mainly due to a 5.7% increase in the number of units purchased per customer, partially offset by a 0.4% decrease in average unit retail prices.

An increase in number of stores open, from 508 stores as of July 31, 2010, to 542 stores as of July 30, 2011.

Cost of sales


	26 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011			Change From Prior Fiscal Period				26 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010
				($ in millions)
Cost of sales	$	205.3		$	19.5	10.5	%	$	185.8
Percentage of net sales		67.3	%			(1.7	)%		69.0	%

Cost of sales as a percentage of net sales decreased due primarily to an increase in merchandise margin as a result of lower markdown rates and favorable inventory shrink results in the Wet Seal division, partially offset by higher markdown rates and higher inventory shrink results in the Arden B division, as compared to the prior year, and a decrease in occupancy costs as a result of the leveraging effect of positive comparable store sales.

Cost of sales increased primarily due to the 13.2% increase in net sales and an increase in occupancy cost as a result of the increase in number of stores.

Selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A)


	26 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011			Change From Prior Fiscal Period				26 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010
				($ in millions)
Selling, general, and administrative expenses	$	81.6		$	11.8	16.8	%	$	69.8
Percentage of net sales		26.8	%			0.9	%		25.9	%

Selling expenses increased approximately $8.5 million from the prior year to $64.0 million. As a percentage of net sales, selling expense was 21.0% of net sales, or 40 basis points higher than a year ago.

The following contributed to the current year increase in selling expenses:

A $6.1 million increase in payroll and benefits costs as a result of increased sales volume;

A $0.7 million increase in merchandise delivery costs due to increased unit volume;

A $0.4 million increase in internet order fulfillment costs due to the prior year not including a reclassification of temporary fulfillment wages from the distribution center;

A $0.4 million increase in credit card fees due to increased sales volume, partially offset by a decline in average processing fees as a percent to sales;

A $0.4 million increase in store supplies due to increased sales volume and replenishment of low store stock levels;

A $0.3 million increase in bags and boxes usage due to increased sales volume and replenishment of low store stock levels; and

A $0.2 million net increase in advertising and marketing expenditures driven by a market research study being conducted to gain a better understanding of the Wet Seal and Arden B customer, offset by a decrease in internet marketing expenditures.

General and administrative expenses increased approximately $3.3 million from the prior year to $17.6 million. As a percentage of net sales, general and administrative expenses were 5.8%, or 50 basis points lower than a year ago.

The following contributed to the current year increase in general and administrative expenses:

A $1.2 million increase in stock compensation expense primarily due to an increase in executive stock compensation;

A $1.1 million increase in corporate incentive bonuses due to improved operating results, relative to incentive targets, in the current year, versus not achieving incentive targets in the prior year;

A $0.9 million increase in corporate wages primarily due to a new chief operating officer position and an increased wage base for our newly appointed chief executive officer, and an increase in internet wages due to growth in our internet infrastructure to support efforts to increase sales volume;

A $0.3 million increase in recruiting fees related to our search for a new chief executive officer and chief operating officer;

A $0.3 million increase in depreciation due to our recently implemented retail merchandising system;

A $0.1 million increase in payroll processing service fees; and

A $0.2 million net increase in other general and administrative expenses.

However, the increases in general and administrative expenses were partially offset by the following decreases:

A $0.3 million decrease in audit fees due to a change in timing of services performed as compared to the prior year; and

A $0.5 million decrease in legal fees associated with various legal matters.

Asset impairment


	26 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011			Change From Prior Fiscal Period				26 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010
	($ in millions)
Asset impairment	$	1.3		$	0.2	16.4	%	$	1.1
Percentage of net sales		0.4	%			0.0	%		0.4	%

Based on our quarterly assessments of the carrying value of long-lived assets, during the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, and July 31, 2010, we identified certain retail stores with carrying values of their assets, including leasehold improvements, furniture, fixtures and equipment, in excess of such stores’ respective forecasted undiscounted cash flows. Accordingly, we reduced their respective carrying values to their estimated fair market values, resulting in non-cash charges of $1.3 million and $1.1 million, respectively.

Interest income (expense), net


	26 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011			Change From Prior Fiscal Period				26 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010
	($ in millions)
Interest income (expense), net	$	0.1		$	2.9	101.8	%	$	(2.8	)
Percentage of net sales		0.0	%			1.1	%		(1.1	)%

We generated interest income, net, of $0.1 million in the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, primarily from investments in cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments.

We incurred interest expense, net, of $2.8 million in the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, comprised of:

Interest charges of $2.8 million, consisting of $2.1 million of non-cash charges and a $0.7 million conversion/exercise inducement, related to the conversion of $4.7 million of our Notes into 3,111,111 shares of our common stock and $1.6 million of our Preferred Stock into 537,000 shares of our common stock, and the exercise of Series E warrants into 625,000 shares of our common stock;

Non-cash interest expense of $0.1 million on our Notes prior to conversion and comprised primarily of discount amortization and, to a lesser extent, annual interest at 3.76%, which we elected to add to principal; partially offset by

Interest income of $0.1 million from investments in cash and cash equivalents.

~~We incurred interest expense, net, of $0.1 million in the 26 weeks ended August 1, 2009, comprised of:~~

Non-cash interest expense of $0.4 million on our Notes, comprised primarily of discount amortization and, to a lesser extent, annual interest at 3.76%, which we elected to add to principal; partially offset by

~~Interest income of less than $0.3 million from investments in cash and cash equivalents.~~

Provision for income taxes

   26 Weeks
Ended
July 31, 2010    Change From
Prior Fiscal Period 26 Weeks
Ended
August 1, 2009
      ($ in millions)
Provision for income taxes
   $ 5.0    $ 4.7    1,887.4 % $ 0.3


	26 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011		Change From Prior Fiscal Period				26 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010
			($ in millions)
Provision for income taxes	$	6.5	$	1.5	30.3	%	$	5.0

We have NOL carry forwards available, subject to certain limitation, to offset our regular taxable income. We recognized a provision for income taxes that resulted in an effective tax rate of 51% for federal and state income taxes. This rate was higher than that expected for future periods due to $2.8 million in interest charges incurred upon the Note conversions, which are not tax-deductible in the first fiscal quarter of 2010. Excluding the effect of these non-deductible charges, theOur effective income tax rate for the ~~first half of fiscal 2010 would have been~~26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, was approximately 39%, ~~which is the~~reflecting our expected effective income tax rate ~~we currently expect to incur~~ for ~~the remainder of the~~ fiscal ~~year.~~

Segment Information

Wet Seal:


(In thousands, except sales per square foot and store count data)	26 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010		26 Weeks Ended August 1, 2009
($ in thousands, except sales per square foot)					26 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011			26 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010
Net sales	$	222,786	$	219,882	$	256,086		$	222,786
Percentage of consolidated net sales		83%		82%		84	%		83	%
Comparable store sales percentage decrease compared to the prior year period		(1.4)%		(10.0)%
Comparable store sales percentage increase (decrease) compared to the prior year fiscal quarter						7.3	%		(1.4	)%
Operating income	$	20,548	$	15,937	$	29,094		$	20,548
Sales per square foot	$	126	$	128	$	134		$	126
Number of stores as of period end		432		415
Square footage as of period end		1,709		1,636
Number of stores as of quarter end						460			432
Square footage as of quarter end						1,832			1,709

~~Wet Seal~~The comparable ~~stores~~store sales ~~decreased 1.4%~~increase during the 26 weeks ended July ~~31, 2010, compared to a prior year decrease of 10.0%. The decrease during the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010,~~30, 2011, was due primarily to ~~a 9.4% decrease~~an increase of 5.8% in average dollar sales per transaction and an increase of 2.0% in comparable store average ~~transactions, partially offset by a 9.0% increase in comparable store average dollar sales per transaction.~~transactions. The increase in comparable store average dollar sales per transaction resulted from a ~~12.1%~~6.3% increase in units purchased per customer, partially offset by a 0.7% decrease in our average unit retail ~~prices, partially offset by a 2.9% decrease in units purchased per customer, as a result of a merchandise content shift towards apparel and away from lower-priced accessories.~~prices. The net sales increase was attributable to the comparable store sales increase, the increase in the number of stores compared to the prior year, and a ~~$1.0~~$0.5 million increase in net sales in our internet ~~business, partially offset by a comparable store sales decline and the prior year including a $0.8 million of additional net sales resulting from a change in estimated breakage.~~business.

Wet Seal’s operating income increased to 11.4% of net sales during the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, from 9.2% of net sales during the 26 weeks ended July 31, ~~2010, from 7.2% during the 26 weeks ended August 1, 2009.~~2010. The increase in operating income, as a percentage of sales, was due primarily to an increase in merchandise margin as a result of ~~an increase~~lower markdown rates, a decrease in ~~initial markup rates and favorable spring physical~~ inventory shrink, ~~results~~ and a decrease in ~~buying, planning and allocation~~occupancy costs ~~primarily~~ due to ~~our open chief merchandise officer position and a reduction in stock compensation expense as a result~~the leveraging effect of ~~higher forfeiture adjustments.~~positive comparable store sales. Additionally, during the 26 weeks ended July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, and the 26 weeks ended ~~August 1, 2009,~~July 31, 2010, operating income included asset impairment charges of ~~$1.1~~$0.8 million and ~~$1.6~~$1.1 million, respectively, to write down the carrying value of long-lived assets that were identified during our quarterly impairment evaluations. The increase for the 26 weeks ended August 1, 2009 was partially offset by a $0.8 million of breakage benefit resulting from a change in estimated breakage for unredeemed gift cards, gift certificates and store credits remaining outstanding more than two years from their respective issuance dates.

Arden B:

(In thousands, except sales per square foot and store count data )
   26 Weeks
Ended
July 31, 2010           26 Weeks
Ended
August 1, 2009
Net sales
   $ 46,517           $ 48,493
Percentage of consolidated net sales
   17%       18%
Comparable store sales percentage increase (decrease) compared to the prior year period
   0.1%       (4.1)%
Operating income
   $ 5,913           $ 5,776
Sales per square foot
   $ 172           $ 169
Number of stores as of period end
   76           81
Square footage as of period end
   230           247


($ in thousands, except sales per square foot)	26 Weeks Ended July 30, 2011			26 Weeks Ended July 31, 2010
Net sales	$	48,724		$	46,517
Percentage of consolidated net sales		16	%		17	%
Comparable store sales percentage increase compared to the prior year fiscal quarter		2.4	%		0.1	%
Operating income	$	4,014		$	5,913
Sales per square foot	$	171		$	172
Number of stores as of quarter end		82			76
Square footage as of quarter end		253			230

~~Arden B~~The comparable ~~stores~~store sales ~~increased 0.1% during the 26 weeks ended July 31, 2010, compared to a prior year decrease of 4.1%. The~~ increase during the 26 weeks ended July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, was due ~~primarily~~ to a ~~2.1%~~4.4% increase ~~in comparable store average transactions, partially offset by a 1.6% decrease~~ in comparable store average dollar sales per ~~transaction.~~transaction, partially offset by a 1.9% decrease in comparable store average transactions. The ~~decrease~~increase in the average dollar ~~sales~~sale per transaction resulted from a ~~7.5% decline~~15.3% increase in our average unit retail prices, partially offset by a ~~6.4% increase~~9.3% decrease in units purchased per customer. The net sales ~~decrease~~increase was ~~primarily~~ attributable to the ~~decrease~~comparable store sales increase and the increase in the number of stores compared to the prior year, ~~and the prior year including a $0.4 million of additional net sales resulting from a change in estimated breakage,~~ partially offset by ~~the comparable store sales increase and~~ a ~~$0.7~~$0.5 million ~~increase~~decrease in net sales in our internet business.

Arden B generated operating income of 8.2% of net sales during the 26 weeks ended July 30, 2011, compared to operating income of 12.7% of net sales during the 26 weeks ended July 31, ~~2010, compared to operating income of 11.9% of net sales during the 26 weeks ended August 1, 2009. The improvement in operating results~~2010. This decrease was due primarily to a decrease in ~~occupancy costs due to a reduction in minimum rent and common area maintenance charges~~merchandise margin as a result of ~~favorable lease negotiations,~~higher markdown rates, an increase in inventory shrink, an increase in occupancy costs as a percentage of net sales as the ~~decrease~~prior year included benefits related to the allocation of rents for gross rent deals and an increase in ~~store counts from 81 stores as of August 1, 2009, to 76 stores as of July 31, 2010,~~payroll and ~~a decrease in store payroll~~benefits costs as a result of ~~improved efficiency on higher sales volume compared to the prior year. These increases were partially offset by operating income for~~increased operational activities and inefficiency in controlling labor hours. Additionally, during the 26 weeks ended ~~August 1, 2009, including a $0.4~~July 30, 2011, operating income included asset impairment charges of $0.5 million to write down the carrying value of breakage benefit resulting from a change in estimated breakage for unredeemed gift cards, gift certificates and store credits remaining outstanding more than two years from their respective issuance dates.long-lived assets that were identified during our quarterly impairment evaluations.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Net cash provided by operating activities was ~~$18.3~~$27.0 million for the 26 weeks ended July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, compared to ~~$12.7~~$18.3 million for the same period last year. For the 26 weeks ended July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, cash provided by operating activities was comprised of ~~our~~ net income of ~~$4.8~~$10.2 million and net non-cash charges, primarily depreciation and amortization, asset impairment, stock-based compensation and provision for deferred income taxes, ~~and non-cash interest expense,~~ of ~~$17.4~~$19.1 million, ~~and a $0.7 million add back for a conversion/exercise inducement fee,~~ partially offset by an increase in merchandise inventories over the increase inof merchandise payables of ~~$2.7~~$1.0 million and a net use of cash from changes in other operating assets and liabilities of ~~$1.9~~$1.3 million. For the 26 weeks ending July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, net cash used in investing activities of ~~$13.0~~$2.1 million was comprised ~~entirely~~of $14.1 million of capital expenditures, primarily for remodeling of existing Wet Seal stores upon lease renewals and/or store relocations, the construction of new Wet Seal stores, and investment in the development of new retail merchandising and point-of-sale operating systems and a distribution sorting system. Capital expenditures that remain unpaid as of July 31, 2010, have increased $5.6 million since the end of fiscal 2009. We expect to pay nearly all of the total balance of such amounts payable, in the amount of $8.2 million, during the third quarter of fiscal 2010.

We estimate that, in fiscal 2010, capital expenditures will be approximately between $31 million and $32 million, net of approximately $4 million in landlord tenant improvement allowances. Of the total net capital expenditures, approximately $20 million to $21 million is expected to be for the remodeling of existing Wet Seal and Arden B stores upon lease renewals and/or store relocations, the construction of new Wet Seal and Arden B stores, and investment in the development of our new retail merchandising system and an upgrade to our point-of-sale operating system, partially offset by $12.0 million of proceeds from the redemption of marketable securities upon maturity. Capital expenditures that remain unpaid as of July 30, 2011, have increased $1.2 million since the end of fiscal 2010. We expect to pay nearly all of the total balance of such amounts payable of $5.4 million during the third quarter of fiscal 2011.

We estimate that, in fiscal 2011, capital expenditures will be between $27.0 million and $28.0 million, of which approximately $17.0 million to $18.0 million is expected to be for the remodeling and/or relocation of existing Wet Seal and Arden B stores upon lease renewals and the construction of new Wet Seal and Arden B stores. We anticipate receiving approximately $5 million in landlord-tenant improvement allowances, resulting in net capital expenditures of between $22 million and $23 million.

For the 26 weeks ending July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, net cash used by financing activities was ~~$1.4~~$40.7 million, comprised of ~~$5.2~~$41.2 million used to repurchase ~~1,394,162~~9,378,525 shares of our Class A common stock, which utilized all remaining capacity under a $12.5 million repurchase authorization granted by our Board of Directors in November 2009, and a $0.7 million conversion inducement fee to a Note holder, partiallyslightly offset by ~~$4.3 million of proceeds from investor exercises of common stock warrants, which resulted in the issuance of 1,160,715 shares of our Class A common stock, and $0.2~~less than $0.5 million of proceeds from the exercise of stock options. Subsequent to July 30, 2011, we paid $1.9 million on the settlement dates for repurchases of 400,000 shares of our Class A common stock for which trades had been executed during our second fiscal quarter. On May 17, 2011, our Board of Directors authorized a $31.7 million increase to our existing stock repurchase program approved in September 2010, bringing the total repurchase authorization up to $56.7 million. During August 2011, we repurchased 2,314,957 additional shares of our Class A common stock for a total cost, including commissions, of approximately $10.6 million, representing completion of the stock repurchase program. Effective August 16, 2011, we retired

24,242,219 shares of our Class A common stock held in treasury. In accordance with Delaware law and the terms of our certificate of incorporation, upon retirement, such treasury shares resumed the status of authorized and unissued shares of Company common stock.

In March 2010, a holder of ~~our~~the Notes, ~~preferred stock~~Preferred Stock and Series E warrants converted $4.7 million in principal amount of ~~our~~the Notes into 3,111,111 shares of our Class A common stock and 1,611 shares of ~~our~~the Preferred Stock into 537,000 shares of our Class A common stock, and exercised Series E warrants into 625,000 shares of our Class A common stock for an exercise price of $2.3 million. As an inducement for the holder to undertake these conversions and/or exercises of the Notes, Preferred Stock and Series E warrants, we provided the holder with a $0.7 million inducement fee. We also repurchased an insignificant remaining Note balance from another holder. As a result of these transactions, there are no longer any remaining Notes and Preferred Stock outstanding and there was a satisfaction and discharge of our obligations under the Indenture governing the Notes.

On November 3, 2010, all of the Company’s remaining Series E Warrants expired unexercised. As a result, no warrants to acquire the Company’s Class A common stock remain outstanding.

Total cash, ~~and~~ cash equivalents and investments at July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, was ~~$165.5~~$147.8 million compared to ~~$161.7~~$176.1 million at January ~~30, 2010.~~29, 2011.

~~We maintain a~~On February 3, 2011, we renewed, via amendment and restatement, our $35.0 million senior revolving credit facility with our existing lender (the “Facility”), which can be increased up to $50.0 million in the absence of any default and upon the satisfaction of certain conditions precedent specified in the ~~agreement.~~Facility. The Facility expires in ~~May 2011 and we intend to either replace or renew our Facility.~~February 2016. Under ~~our~~the Facility, we are subject to borrowing base limitations on the amount that can be borrowed and certain customary covenants, including, under certain circumstances, covenants limiting our ability to incur additional indebtedness, make investments and acquisitions, grant liens, pay dividends, repurchase our common stock, close stores, and dispose of assets, ~~subject to certain exceptions.~~without the lender’s consent. Our ability to borrow and request the issuance of letters of credit is subject to

the requirement that we maintain an excess of the borrowing base over the outstanding credit extensions of ~~not less than $5.0~~the greater of 10% of the aggregate amount of the Facility or $4.0 million. The annual interest rate on ~~our~~the revolving line of credit under the Facility is (i) the higher of the lender’s prime rate, the Federal funds rate plus 0.5% or ~~if we elect,~~ the one month London InterBank Offered Rate ~~(“LIBOR”)~~(LIBOR) plus 1.0%, collectively referred to as the “Base Rate,” plus the applicable margin ranging from 0.5% to 1.0% or, (ii) if we elect, either the one, two, three or six months LIBOR plus a margin ranging from ~~1.0%~~1.5% to ~~1.5%~~2.0%. The applicable Base Rate or LIBOR margin is based on the level of average excess availability, as defined under ~~our~~the Facility, at the time of election, as adjusted quarterly. ~~The applicable LIBOR margin was 1.0% as of July 31, 2010.~~ We also incur fees on outstanding letters of credit under the Facility at aan annual rate equal to the applicable LIBOR margin for standby letters of credit and ~~33.3%~~23.0% of the applicable LIBOR margin for commercial letters of credit. Additionally, we are subject to commitment fees at an annual rate of 0.25% on the unused portion of the line of credit under the Facility.

Borrowings under the Facility are secured by ~~all of our presently owned~~cash, cash equivalents, investments, receivables and ~~hereafter acquired assets. Our obligations thereunder are guaranteed~~inventory held by ~~one of~~us and our wholly owned subsidiaries, The Wet Seal ~~GC, LLC.~~Retail, Inc. and Wet Seal Catalog, Inc., each of which may be a borrower under the Facility.

At July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, the amount outstanding under the Facility consisted of ~~$3.8~~$5.3 million in open documentary letters of credit related to merchandise purchases and $1.5 million in outstanding standby letters of credit. At July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, we had ~~$29.7~~$28.2 million available for cash advances and/or for the issuance of additional letters of credit, and we were in compliance with all covenant requirements inunder the Facility.

We believe we will have sufficient cash and credit availability to meet our operating and capital requirements for at least the next 12 months. However, the significant deterioration in consumer confidence and spending experienced over the past few years could remain depressed for an extended period. As a result of this continuing economic crisis, we may experience continued declines in consolidated comparable store sales or experience other events that negatively affect our operating results. If our consolidated comparable store sales drop significantly for an extended period, or we falter in execution of our business strategy, we may not achieve our financial performance goals, which could adversely impact our results of operations and operating cash flow. This could also cause a decrease in or elimination of excess availability under our Facility, which could force us to seek alternatives to address potential cash constraints, including seeking additional debt and/or equity financing.

The financial performance of our business is susceptible to declines in discretionary consumer spending, availability of consumer credit and low consumer confidence in the United States. ~~Volatile~~Increasing fuel prices and ~~increasing~~ commodity costs may also cause a shift in consumer demand away from the retail clothing products that we offer. There are no guarantees that government or other initiatives will limit the duration or severity of the current economic ~~recession~~challenges or stabilize factors that affect our sales and profitability. ~~Recent~~Continuing adverse economic trends could affect us more significantly than companies in other industries.

Seasonality and Inflation

Our business is seasonal in nature, with the Christmas season, beginning the week of Thanksgiving and ending the first Saturday after Christmas, and the back-to-school season, beginning the last week of July and ending during September, historically accounting for a large percentage of our sales volume. For the past three fiscal years, the Christmas and back-to-school seasons together accounted for an average of slightly less than 30% of our annual sales.

We do not believe that inflation has had a material effect on our results of operations during the past three years. However, we began to experience cost pressures in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010 and saw further cost increases through the second quarter of fiscal 2011 as a result of rising commodity prices, primarily for cotton, increased labor costs, due to labor shortages in China, from which a majority of our merchandise is sourced and increasing fuel costs. We expect these sourcing cost pressures to continue in the second half of fiscal 2011. The rising value of the currency in China relative to the U.S. dollar may also have a further impact on future product costs. In response to the costs increases, we have evaluated and opportunistically adjusted our pricing in certain categories, are leveraging our large vendor base to lower costs and are assessing ongoing promotional strategies in efforts to maintain or improve upon historical merchandise margin levels. We will continue to diligently monitor our costs as well as the competitive pricing environment in order to mitigate potential margin erosion. However, we cannot be certain that our business will not be affected by inflation in the future.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

As of July 30, 2011, we are not a party to any off-balance sheet arrangements, except for operating lease and purchase obligations as referenced in our Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2011 under “Commitments and Contingencies” and “Other Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements.”

Item 3.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

Interest Rate Risk

To the extent that we borrow under ~~our~~the Facility, we are exposed to market risk related to changes in interest rates. At July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, no borrowings were outstanding under ~~our~~the Facility. At July 30, 2011, the weighted average interest rate on borrowings under the Facility was 1.333%. Based upon a sensitivity analysis as of July 30, 2011, if we had average outstanding borrowings of $1 million during second quarter of fiscal 2011, a 50 basis point increase in interest rates would have resulted in a potential increase in interest expense of approximately $1,250 for the second quarter of fiscal 2011.

As of July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, we are not a party to any derivative financial instruments.

Foreign Currency Exchange Rate Risk

We contract for and settle all purchases in U.S. dollars. We only purchase a modest amount of goods directly from international vendors. Thus, we consider the effect of currency rate changes to be indirect and we believe the effect of a major shift in currency exchange rates on short-term results would be ~~minimal.~~minimal, as a hypothetical 10% change in the foreign exchange rate of the Chinese currency against the U.S. dollar as of July 30, 2011 would not materially affect our results of operations or cash flows. Over a longer period, the cumulative year-to-year impact of such changes, especially the exchange rate of the Chinese currency against the U.S. dollar, could be significant, albeit indirectly, through increased charges in U.S. dollars from our vendors that source their products internationally.

Item 4.

Controls and Procedures

Disclosure Controls and Procedures

We conducted an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, of our disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined in Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)

promulgated under the Securities Exchange ~~Act.~~Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). These disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide reasonable assurance that the information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified by the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms. Our disclosure controls and procedures are also designed to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, in order to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures. Based on this evaluation, our chief executive officer and our chief financial officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at a reasonable assurance level as of July ~~31, 2010.~~30, 2011.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

During the fiscal quarter ended July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, no changes occurred with respect to our internal control over financial reporting that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, internal control over financial reporting.

PART II. Other Information

Item 1.

Legal Proceedings

On July 19, 2006, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of certain of our current and former employees that were employed and paid by us on an hourly basis during the four-year period from July 19, 2002 through July 19, 2006. We were named as a defendant. The complaint alleged various violations under the State of California Labor Code, the State of California Business and Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. On November 30, 2006, we reached an agreement to pay approximately $0.3 million to settle this matter, subject to Superior Court approval. On ~~May 18, 2007,~~September 27, 2010, the Superior Court ~~entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement. On February 29, 2008, the court issued its order granting~~granted final approval of the ~~class action~~ settlement ~~subject to appeal. On April 28, 2008, a notice of~~agreement. An appeal ~~of the judgment~~ was ~~filed. On May 6, 2009, the Court reversed and remanded the case to the Superior Court to re-evaluate the fairness of the settlement, and a final hearing will take place in September 2010.~~subsequently filed on January 26, 2011. As of July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, we have accrued an amount equal to the settlement amount in accrued liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheet.

On May 22, 2007, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange on behalf of certain of our current and former employees who were employed and paid by us from May 22, 2003 through the present. We were named as a defendant. The complaint alleged various violations under the State of California Labor Code, the State of California Business and Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. ~~Discovery is ongoing~~On December 17, 2010, the court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification in its entirety and denied Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to File An Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs ~~filed their motion for class certification in July 2010. Our opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion is due on September 24, 2010, and the hearing is scheduled for October 8, 2010.~~have appealed both orders. We are vigorously defending this litigation and are unable to predict the likely outcome and whether such outcome may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. Accordingly, no provision for a loss contingency has been accrued as of July ~~31, 2010.~~30, 2011.

On September 29, 2008, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco on behalf of certain of our current and former employees who were employed and paid by us from September 29, 2004 through the present. We were named as a defendant. The complaint alleges various violations under the State of California Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions Code. ~~Plaintiffs recently filed an amended complaint, and we filed a motion to strike allegations of the third amended complaint on or about February 16, 2010.~~ The case has been transferred to the complex panel of the San Francisco Superior Court for case management purposes. ~~No class certification motion filing deadline has been set~~Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Defendants’ Motion to Strike Class Claims were filed on April 25, 2011, were heard by the Court on August 5, 2011 and on August 16, 2011, the court ~~and discovery is ongoing.~~denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. We are vigorously defending this litigation and are unable to predict the likely outcome and whether such outcome may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. Accordingly, no provision for a loss contingency has been accrued as of July ~~31, 2010.~~

On March 18, 2009, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange on behalf of certain of our current and former employees that were employed and paid by us from March 18, 2005 through March 18, 2009. We were named as a defendant. The complaint alleged various violations under the State of California Labor Code, the State of California Business and Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. On October 23, 2009, we reached an agreement to pay approximately $0.2 million to settle this matter, subject to Superior Court approval. The Court has preliminarily approved the settlement and set a final approval hearing for September 2, 2010. We paid the preliminary settlement amount in August 2010.30, 2011.

~~Central District of California seeking relief from the subpoena, which action it has since voluntarily dismissed. Later that same month,~~ the EEOC filed an application to enforce the subpoena in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and is in the process of a nationwide investigation. We are awaiting the results of the ~~EEOC’s~~ investigation and are unable to predict the likely outcome and whether such outcome may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. Accordingly, no provision for a loss contingency has been accrued as of July ~~31, 2010.~~30, 2011.

On May 9, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda on behalf of certain of our current and former employees who were employed and paid by us from May 9, 2007 through the present. We were named as a defendant. The complaint alleges various violations under the State of California Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions Code. On June 7, 2011, we filed a Petition for Coordination with the Judicial Council of California to coordinate this action with the Orange County action dated May 22, 2007. No hearing date has been set for the Coordination Motion. We are vigorously defending this litigation and are unable to predict the likely outcome and whether such outcome may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. Accordingly, no provision for a loss contingency has been accrued as of July 30, 2011.

From time to time, we are involved in other litigation matters relating to claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business. We believe that, in the event of a settlement or an adverse judgment on certain of these claims, ~~arising out of the normal course of business,~~ we have insurance coverage to cover a portion of such losses; however, certain other matters may exist or arise for which we do not have insurance coverage. As of July ~~31, 2010,~~30, 2011, except as described in the paragraphs above, we were not engaged in any other legal proceedings that are expected, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

Item 1A.

Risk Factors

~~The following risk factor represents an addition to~~There are no material changes from the risk factors previously disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January ~~30, 2010.~~29, 2011.

~~We are in the process of identifying a successor to our president and chief executive officer and the resulting succession may impact our ability to execute our business strategy in the near term.~~

As previously announced, Mr. Edmond S. Thomas, our president, chief executive officer and a director, will resign from his positions with our company upon the expiration of his existing employment agreement on October 8, 2010. We have entered into a transition services agreement with Mr. Thomas for a period of four months following the end of his employment agreement. During this period, Mr. Thomas will serve as interim president and interim chief executive officer and will be compensated for such services rendered pursuant to the terms of the transition services agreement. However, there can be no assurance that Mr. Thomas will continue to serve in any capacity during the entire transition period or that we will find a suitable replacement for Mr. Thomas before the expiration of Mr. Thomas’ employment agreement or the conclusion of his transition period.

If we are not able to appoint a new president and chief executive officer in a timely manner, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, we anticipate that we will experience a transition period before our new chief executive officer is fully integrated into his/her new roles. We cannot provide any assurance that there will not be any disruption that adversely impacts our customer relationships, employee morale and our business.

Item 2.

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

(a)

None.

(b)

None.

(c)	~~None.~~Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities


Period	Total Number of Shares Purchased		Average Price Paid per Share		Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs (1)		Maximum Dollar Value of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs
May 1, 2011 to May 28, 2011		—		—		—	$	49,959,648
May 29, 2011 to July 2, 2011		5,529,132	$	4.22		5,529,132	$	26,549,619
July 3, 2011 to July 30, 2011		3,249,393	$	4.90		3,249,393	$	10,571,281

(1)

On September 7, 2010, our Board of Directors authorized a program to repurchase up to $25.0 million of the outstanding shares of our Class A common stock from time to time in the open market or in privately negotiated transactions. On May 17, 2011, our Board of Directors authorized a $31.7 million increase to the existing stock repurchase program approved in September 2010, bringing total repurchase authorization up to $56.7 million. Up to June 13, 2011, the timing and number of shares repurchased were determined by management based on their evaluation of market conditions and other factors. Effective June 13, 2011, we began to execute under this program pursuant to a securities purchase plan established by us under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b5-1.

Pursuant to the above plans, we repurchased 8,778,525 shares of our Class A common stock, during the 13 weeks ended July 30, 2011, at an average market price of $4.47 per share, for a total cost, including commissions, of approximately $39.4 million, bringing the total repurchased under this program of 10,660,825 shares of our Class A common stock at a total of $46.1 million. No such repurchases occurred during fiscal May.

During August 2011 we repurchased 2,314,957 additional shares of our Class A common stock at an average market price of $4.57 per share, for a total cost, including commissions, of approximately $10.6 million, completing the stock repurchase program.

Effective August 16, 2011, we retired 24,242,219 shares of our Class A common stock held in treasury. In accordance with Delaware law and the terms of our certificate of incorporation, upon retirement, such treasury shares resumed the status of authorized and unissued shares of Company common stock.

Item 3.

Defaults Upon Senior Securities

(a)

None.

(b)

None.

Item 4.

~~Removed and~~ Reserved

Item 5.

Other Information

None.

Item 6. Exhibits


~~4.4.4~~
10.1.1		~~Satisfaction and Discharge~~Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated as of ~~Indenture~~August 4, 2011, entered into between ~~our company~~ the ~~The Bank of New York Mellon, dated as of May 3, 2010 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1 of our company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 7, 2010)~~

~~10.5.2~~		~~Amendment to the 2005 Stock Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference in Exhibit B of our company’s Definitive Proxy Statement of Form DEF 14A, dated April 19, 2010)~~ Company and Mr. Seipel

31.1		Certification of the Chief Executive Officer filed herewith pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

31.2		Certification of the Chief Financial Officer filed herewith pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

32.1		Certification of the Chief Executive Officer furnished herewith pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

32.2		Certification of the Chief Financial Officer furnished herewith pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

101		The following materials from The Wet Seal, Inc.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2011, formatted in XBRL (Extensible Business Reporting Language) and furnished electronically herewith: (i) the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited), (ii) the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited), (iii) the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity and Comprehensive Income (Unaudited), (iv) the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (Unaudited), and (v) Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited), tagged as blocks of text. This exhibit will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such exhibit will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


	THE WET SEAL, INC. (REGISTRANT)

Date: August ~~31, 2010~~26, 2011	By:	/s/ ~~Edmond S. Thomas~~Susan P. McGalla
		~~Edmond S. Thomas~~Susan P. McGalla
		~~President and~~ Chief Executive Officer

Date: August ~~31, 2010~~26, 2011	By:	/s/ Steven H. Benrubi
		Steven H. Benrubi
		Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

3839


	13 Weeks Ended
	July 31, 2010						August 1, 2009
	Net Income			Shares	Per Share Amount		Net Income			Shares	Per Share Amount
Basic earnings per share:
Net income	$	1,615					$	3,103
Less: Undistributed earnings allocable to participating securities		(23	)					(159	)

Basic earnings per share	$	1,592		100,257,750	$	0.02	$	2,944		95,594,834	$	0.03

Diluted earnings per share:
Net income	$	1,615					$	3,103
Less: Undistributed earnings allocable to participating securities		(23	)					(158	)
Effect of dilutive securities				298,884						564,427

Diluted earnings per share	$	1,592		100,556,634	$	0.02	$	2,945		96,159,261	$	0.03