dictate.  Since future events and their effects cannot be determined with absolute certainty, actual results may differ from the estimates and assumptions used in preparing the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

In April 2015, the FASB issued guidance to simplify the balance sheet presentation of debt issuance costs. The standard requires that debt issuance costs be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying value of the associated debt, consistent with the presentation of debt discounts or premiums. The recognition and measurement guidance for debt issuance costs are not affected by the new guidance. In addition, the FASB issued guidance in August 2015 to clarify the treatment of debt issuance costs related to line of credit arrangements. Companies can continue to present debt issuance costs for line of credit arrangements as an asset and subsequently amortize the deferred issuance cost ratably over the term of the arrangement. This newWe adopted this guidance is effective for us as ofin the firstfourth quarter of fiscal year 2017.2016 on a retrospective basis. Unamortized debt issuance costs, except unamortized debt issuance costs related to our Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility, are now presented as a direct reduction of long-term debt on the Company's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of October 29, 2016, July 30, 2016, and October 31, 2015. Unamortized debt issuance costs of $119.7 million as of October 31, 2015 have been reclassified on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet from other assets to a direct reduction of long-term debt.

At April 30,October 29, 2016, borrowings under the Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility bore interest at a rate per annum equal to, at our option, either (a) a base rate determined by reference to the highest of (1) the prime rate of Deutsche Bank AG New York Branch (the administrative agent), (2) the federal funds effective rate plus ½ of 1.00% and (3) the adjusted one-month LIBOR plus 1.00% or (b) LIBOR, subject to certain adjustments, in each case plus an applicable margin (1.25% at April 30, 2016).  The applicable margin is up toof 0.75% with respect to base rate borrowings and up to 1.75% with respect to LIBOR borrowings.borrowings at October 29, 2016.  The applicable margin is subject to adjustment based on the average historical excess availability under the Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility.Facility, and is up to 1.00% with respect to base rate borrowings and up to 2.00% with respect to LIBOR borrowings, in each case with 0.25% step downs based on achievement and maintenance of a certain senior secured first lien net leverage ratio (as defined in the credit agreement governing the Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility).  The weighted average interest rate on the outstanding borrowings pursuant to the Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility was 1.69%2.28% at April 30,October 29, 2016.  In addition, we are required to pay a commitment fee in respect of unused commitments at a rate of 0.25%up to 0.375% per annum.  We must also pay customary letter of credit fees and agency fees.

payment to the term loans or unsecured and pari passu in right of payment with the term loans, a total net leverage ratio equal to or less than the total net leverage ratio as of October 25, 2013.

At April 30,29, 2016, borrowings under the Senior Secured Term Loan Facility bore interest at a rate per annum equal to, at our option, either (a) a base rate determined by reference to the highest of (1) the prime rate of Credit Suisse AG (the administrative agent), (2) the federal funds effective rate plus ½ of 1.00% and (3) the adjusted one-month LIBOR plus 1.00%, or (b) an adjusted LIBOR (for a period equal to the relevant interest period, and in any event, never less than 1.00%), subject to certain adjustments, in each case plus an applicable margin.  The applicable margin is up to 2.25% with respect to base rate borrowings and up to 3.25% with respect to LIBOR borrowings.  The applicable margin is subject to adjustment based on our senior secured first lien net leverage ratio.  The applicable margin with respect to outstanding LIBOR borrowings was 3.25% at April 30,October 29, 2016.  The interest rate on the outstanding borrowings pursuant to the Senior Secured Term Loan Facility was 4.25% at April 30,October 29, 2016.

We may redeem the Cash Pay Notes, in whole or in part, at any time and from time to time prior to October 15,29, 2016, at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Cash Pay Notes redeemed plus accrued and unpaid interest up to the redemption date plus the applicable premium. In addition, we may redeem up to 40% in the aggregate principal amount of the Cash Pay Notes with the net proceeds of certain equity offeringsprice at any time and from time to time before October 15, 2016 at a redemption price equal to 108.00% of the face amount thereof, plus accrued and unpaid interest up to the date of redemption, so long as at least 50% of the original aggregate principal amount of the Cash Pay Notes remain outstanding after such redemption and such redemption occurs within 120 days of the equity offering. On and after October 15, 2016,which we may redeem the Cash Pay Notes, in whole or in part, at the redemption pricesas set forth in the indenture governing the Cash Pay Notes.Notes, was 106.000%. The Cash Pay Notes mature on October 15, 2021.

For a more detailed description of the PIK Toggle Notes, refer to Note 89 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 1, 2015.July 30, 2016.

for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") seeking to arbitrate not only their individual claims, but also class claims, which the Company asserted violated the class action waiver in the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement. This led to further proceedings in the trial court, a stay of the arbitrations, and a decision by the trial court, on its own motion, to reconsider its order compelling arbitration. The trial court ultimately decided to vacate its order compelling arbitration due to a recent California appellate court decision.  Following this ruling, the Company timely filed two separate appeals, one with respect to Mr. Pinela and one with respect to Ms. Monjazeb, with the California Court of Appeal, asserting that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to change its earlier determination of the enforceability of the arbitration agreement. On June 29, 2015, after briefing and oral argument, the California Court of Appeal issued its order affirming the trial court's denial of our motion to compel arbitration and awarding Mr. Pinela his costs of appeal. On July 13, 2015, we filed our petition for rehearing with the California Court of Appeal, which was denied on July 29, 2015. On August 10, 2015, we filed our petition for review with the California Supreme Court, and Mr. Pinela filed his answer on August 31, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the California Supreme Court denied our petition for review. On October 6, 2015, the case was transferred back to the trial court. On November 16, 2015, Mr. Pinela filed a motion to stay the proceedings in the trial court until after the appellate court resolves Ms. Tanguilig’s appeal. On December 10, 2015, the hearing on Mr. Pinela's motion to stay and a case management conference were held, and the trial court judge issued an order granting the motion and issuing a stay, which currently remains in effect. The appeal with respect to Ms. Monjazeb was dismissed since final approval of the class action settlement (as described below) had been granted.

June 10, 2016, the NLRB filed an unopposed motion seeking to extend the stay until the deadline for petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari has passed in a similar case, and, if such petition is filed, until the Supreme Court resolves that case. On June 20, 2016, the motion was granted. The NLRB filed its petition for certiorari on September 9, 2016, and our case remains stayed.

District of Illinois. On June 2, 2014, an amended complaint in the Remijas case was filed, which added three plaintiffs (Debbie Farnoush and Joanne Kao, California residents; and Melissa Frank, a New York resident) and asserted claims for negligence, implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of various consumer protection statutes, invasion of privacy and violation of state data breach laws. The Company moved to dismiss the Remijas amended complaint on July 2, 2014. On September 16, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Remijas case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing due to their failure to demonstrate an actionable injury. On September 25, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the district court's order dismissing the case to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on January 23, 2015. On July 20, 2015, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's ruling and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On August 3, 2015, we filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On September 17, 2015, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied our petition for rehearing. The district court held a status conference on October 29, 2015 and set a supplemental briefing schedule on the remaining portion of our previously filed motion to dismiss that had not been addressed by the court, and scheduled a status hearing for December 15, 2015. The parties completed supplemental briefing on December 21, 2015. On January 13, 2016, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. Our responsive pleading was due on June 10, 2016. The parties jointly requested, and the Court granted, an extension of time for filing a responsive pleading, which is currently due on July 11,December 28, 2016. Andrew McClease v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on December 30, 2014, alleging negligence and other claims in connection with Mr. McClease's purchase by payment card. On March 9, 2015, the McClease case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by stipulation of the parties.

purchase a total of 56,979 shares of Class A common stock and 56,979 shares of Class B common stock of Parent (the "Co-Invest Options").

At April 30,October 29, 2016, an aggregate of 53,78245,210 Co-Invest Options and time-vested options were held by Retirement Eligible Optionees. The recorded liability with respect to such options was $19.8$4.4 million at AprilOctober 29, 2016, $5.5 million at July 30, 2016 $15.9and $17.8 million at August 1, 2015 and $22.2 million at May 2,October 31, 2015. We recognize compensation expense, which is included in selling, general and administrative expenses, for stock options on a straight-line basis over the vesting/performance periods.