Commitments and Contingencies | 11. Commitments and Contingencies Credit Facilities The Company’s Credit Facilities and commitments are discussed in detail in Note 5, “Debt.” Mid-Term Cash Incentive Plan and Special Bonus Letters On July 26, 2016, the Compensation Committee of the Board (the “Compensation Committee”) adopted the 99 Cents Only Stores LLC 2016 Mid-Term Cash Incentive Plan (the “Mid-Term Cash Incentive Plan”). The Mid-Term Cash Incentive Plan is intended to promote the success of the Company by rewarding certain employees for their service to the Company and to provide incentives for such employees to remain in the employ or other service of the Company and to contribute to the performance of the Company. Under the Mid-Term Cash Incentive Plan, if the Company achieves an initial Adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the Mid-Term Cash Incentive Plan) goal for either fiscal 2017 or the fiscal year ending January 26, 2018 (the “Initial Mid-Term Plan Goal”), 50% of a participant’s award will be eligible for payment. No amounts will be paid under the Mid-Term Cash Incentive Plan if the Initial Mid-Term Plan Goal is not achieved. If the Company achieves the Initial Mid-Term Plan Goal and then achieves the same Adjusted EBITDA goal for the fiscal year immediately following the year in which the Initial Mid-Term Plan Goal was achieved, the remaining 50% of the participant’s award will be eligible for payment. Payment of eligible awards will only be made to the extent the Company’s Free Cash Flow (as defined in the Mid-Term Cash Incentive Plan) exceeds the amount eligible for payment, as measured at the end of each second quarter and fourth quarter of each fiscal year after an amount becomes eligible for payment until the end of the fiscal year ending January 31, 2020. The Company does not expect to maintain the Mid-Term Cash Incentive Plan for periods after the fiscal year ending July 31, 2020. The maximum payout under the Mid-Term Cash Incentive Plan is $22.5 million. The Company recognizes the expense associated with this Mid-Term Cash Incentive Plan over the requisite service periods and has accrued $8.9 million and $6.0 million as of April 28, 2017 and January 27, 2017, respectively. On July 26, 2016, the Compensation Committee approved special bonus letters for three executives. Pursuant to the terms thereof, if a Refinancing Transaction (as defined in the special bonus letters) occurs prior to October 1, 2018, each of the applicable executives will be eligible to receive a special bonus payable within 30 days of such transaction. The special bonuses to be earned by the applicable executives total $4.0 million. No amounts have been accrued as of April 28, 2017. Workers’ Compensation The Company self-insures its workers’ compensation claims in California and Texas and provides for losses of estimated known and incurred but not reported insurance claims. The Company does not discount the projected future cash outlays for the time value of money for claims and claim related costs when establishing its workers’ compensation liability. As of April 28, 2017 and January 27, 2017, the Company had recorded a liability of $69.3 million and $69.1 million, respectively, for estimated workers’ compensation claims in California. The Company has limited self-insurance exposure in Texas and had recorded a liability of less than $0.1 million as of each of April 28, 2017 and January 27, 2017 for workers’ compensation claims in Texas. The Company purchases workers’ compensation insurance coverage in Arizona and Nevada and is not self-insured in those states. Self-Insured Health Insurance Liability The Company self-insures for a portion of its employee medical benefit claims. As of each of April 28, 2017 and January 27, 2017, the Company had recorded a liability of $0.7 million and $0.9 million, respectively, for estimated health insurance claims. The Company maintains stop loss insurance coverage to limit its exposure for the self-funded portion of its health insurance program. Sale of Warehouse Facility On July 6, 2016, the Company sold and concurrently licensed (through March 31, 2017) a warehouse facility in the City of Commerce, California with a carrying value of $12.1 million and received net proceeds from this transaction of $28.5 million. In addition to the proceeds, $1.0 million purchase price consideration had been held in escrow for the buyer to make certain repairs, and any amount not used for such repairs would be paid to the Company. The repairs were completed in January 2017 and the Company received $0.6 million from amounts held in escrow. The Company was deemed to have “continuing involvement,” which precluded the de-recognition of the assets from the consolidated balance sheet when the transactions closed. The resulting lease was accounted for as a financing lease and the Company recorded a financing lease obligation of $30.1 million (as a component of current liabilities) as of January 27, 2017. The Company exited the warehouse facility in March 2017, de-recognized the assets and financing lease obligation and recorded a gain on sale of $18.5 million as part of selling, general and administrative expenses in the first quarter of fiscal 2018. Legal Matters Wage and Hour Matters Shelley Pickett v. 99¢ Only Stores. Plaintiff Shelley Pickett, a former cashier for the Company, filed a representative action complaint against the Company on November 4, 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles alleging a Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) claim that the Company violated section 14 of Wage Order 7-2001 by failing to provide seats for its cashiers behind checkout counters. Pickett seeks civil penalties of $100 to $200 per violation, per each pay period for each affected employee, and attorney’s fees. The court denied the Company’s motion to compel arbitration of Pickett’s individual claims or, in the alternative, to strike the representative action allegations in the complaint, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. On June 27, 2013, Pickett entered into a settlement agreement and release with the Company in another matter. Payment has been made to the plaintiff under that agreement and the other action has been dismissed. The Company’s position is that the release Pickett executed in that matter waives the claims she asserts in this action, waives her right to proceed on a class or representative basis or as a private attorney general and requires her to dismiss this action with prejudice as to her individual claims. The Company notified Pickett of its position by a letter dated as of July 30, 2013, but she refused to dismiss the lawsuit. On February 11, 2014, the Company answered the complaint, denying all material allegations, and filed a cross-complaint against Pickett seeking to enforce her agreement to dismiss this action. Through the cross-complaint, the Company seeks declaratory relief, specific performance and damages. Pickett has answered the cross-complaint, asserting a general denial of all material allegations and various affirmative defenses. On September 30, 2014, the court denied the Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to its cross-complaint and granted leave to Pickett to amend her complaint to add another representative plaintiff, Tracy Humphrey. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on October 8, 2014, and the Company answered on October 10, 2014, denying all material allegations. On April 4, 2016, in an unrelated matter involving similar claims against a different employer, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling that provides guidance to lower courts as to California’s employee seating requirement, which is a largely untested area of law. The instant action had been stayed pending the issuance of the California Supreme Court ruling. The stay has been lifted and the parties mediated this matter on October 19, 2016. The mediation did not result in a settlement. A bench trial was originally scheduled for May 31, 2017, and had been continued by the Court to June 6, 2017. The Court bifurcated the trial so that it will address liability in the first phase, and penalties in a second phase, if necessary. The Company filed a motion to strike the representative allegations in the complaint and focus the trial on the two stores where the named Plaintiffs worked. That motion was heard on May 9, 2017, and, on May 25, 2017, the motion to strike was denied and the motion to phase trial was granted. The parties are engaged in settlement discussions and any settlement will be subject to statutory notice requirements and conditioned upon court approval. The Court has continued the trial to July 12, 2017, to allow time to prepare settlement documentation. The Company accrued an immaterial amount related to this matter as of April 28, 2017. If the settlement is not finalized or not approved by the Court, the Company will not be able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or the amount of potential loss, if any, that could result from such lawsuit. Sofia Wilton Barriga v. 99¢ Only Stores. Plaintiff, a former store associate, filed an action against the Company on August 5, 2013, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside alleging on behalf of the plaintiff and all others allegedly similarly situated under the California Labor Code that the Company failed to pay wages for all hours worked, provide meal periods, pay wages timely upon termination, and provide accurate wage statements. The plaintiff also asserted a derivative claim for unfair competition under the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all non-exempt employees who were employed in California in the Company’s retail stores who worked the graveyard shift at any time from January 1, 2012, through the date of trial or settlement. Although the class period as originally pled would extend back to August 5, 2009, the parties have agreed that any class period would run beginning January 1, 2012, because of the preclusive effect of a judgment in a previous matter. The plaintiff seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, statutory penalties, interest, attorney’s fees and costs, and restitution. On September 23, 2013, the Company filed an answer denying all material allegations. A case management conference was held on October 4, 2013, at which the court ordered that discovery may proceed as to class certification issues only. After discovery commenced, a mediation was held on March 12, 2015, resulting in a confidential mediator’s proposal, which the parties verbally accepted. The parties were unable to negotiate and finalize a written settlement agreement. Subsequent settlement discussions directly and through the mediator, as well as a court-ordered settlement conference, were unsuccessful. Discovery resumed and plaintiff’s motion for class certification was fully briefed. Plaintiff also brought a motion to strike the evidence submitted in support of the Company’s opposition to class certification. At the Court’s request the parties mediated this matter prior to any ruling on the class certification motion and the motion to strike. That mediation took place on March 2, 2017, and did not result in a settlement. The motion for class certification and motion to strike were heard on April 20, 2017, and on April 26, 2017, the Court denied both motions. On October 26, 2015, plaintiffs’ counsel filed another action in Los Angeles Superior Court, entitled Ivan Guerra v. 99 Cents Only Stores LLC (Case No. BC599119), which asserts PAGA claims based in part on the allegations at issue in the Barriga action. By stipulation of the parties, the Guerra action has been transferred to Riverside Superior Court and was mediated along with the Barriga action on March 2, 2017. The Company cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or the amount of potential loss, if any, that could result from such lawsuits. Phillip Clavel v. 99 Cents Only Stores LLC, et al. Former warehouse worker Phillip Clavel filed an action against the Company on March 30, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles on behalf of himself and all other alleged aggrieved employees, seeking civil penalties under the PAGA for the following alleged Labor Code violations: failure to pay regular, overtime and minimum wages for all hours worked, failure to provide proper meal and rest periods, failure to pay wages timely during employment and upon termination, failure to provide proper wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, and failure to provide notice of the material terms of employment under the Wage Theft Prevention Act. Mr. Clavel alleges that his claims arose during two periods of employment—one from March 2015 through mid-October 2015, during which he was employed by the Company as a forklift operator in the Commerce Distribution Center, and a second period from late October 2015 through February 2016, when he was similarly employed (through a staffing agency, BaronHR) at the Company’s Washington Boulevard warehouse. On June 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The Company answered the First Amended Complaint on June 14, 2016, generally denying the allegations in the complaint and asserting a number of affirmative defenses. BaronHR has also answered the First Amended Complaint. Trial has been set to commence on July 18, 2017. A mediation took place on January 19, 2017, and at the conclusion of the mediation, the parties executed a term sheet settlement agreement to resolve the alleged PAGA claims. The parties have now executed a long-form settlement agreement reflecting the final terms; however, the settlement is contingent on Court approval. The Company accrued an immaterial amount related to this matter as of January 27, 2017 and April 28, 2017. If the proposed settlement is not finalized or not approved by the Court, the Company will not be able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or the amount of potential loss, if any, that could result from such lawsuit. Jimmy Mejia, et al. v. 99 Cents Only Stores LLC . Former store associates Jimmy Mejia and Yamilet Serrano filed an action against the Company on September 16, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles on behalf of themselves and all other alleged aggrieved employees, seeking civil penalties under the PAGA for the following alleged Labor Code violations: failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for all hours worked, failure to provide proper meal and rest periods, failure to pay timely wages during employment and upon termination, and failure to provide proper wage statements. On November 14, 2016, the Company answered the complaint, generally denying the allegations in the complaint and asserting a number of affirmative defenses. Trial has been scheduled for January 8, 2018. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or the amount of potential loss, if any, that could result from such lawsuit. Venzel Bradford v. BaronHR, Inc., et al. Former warehouse worker Venzel Bradford filed a putative class action complaint against BaronHR, Inc., Solvis Staffing Services, Inc., Personnel Staffing Group, LLC, and the Company on April 26, 2017, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. On behalf of himself and all others alleged to be similarly situated, Bradford is asserting claims for failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, waiting time penalties, failure to provide proper wage statements, and unfair competition. Bradford was not employed by the Company; he was employed by one or more of the staffing agencies named as defendants. The Company has not yet been served with the complaint and intends to seek indemnity from the employing agency(ies). The Company cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or the amount of potential loss, if any, that could result from such lawsuit. Environmental Matters People of the State of California v. 99 Cents Only Stores LLC. This action was brought by the San Joaquin District Attorney and a number of other public prosecutors against the Company alleging that the Company had violated hazardous waste statutory and regulatory requirements at its retail stores in California. The Company settled this case through the entry of a stipulated judgment in December 2014 which contained injunctive relief requiring the Company to comply with applicable hazardous waste requirements at these stores. On June 29, 2015, the District Attorney informed the Company of alleged hazardous waste violations identified during a March 2015 inspection of a recently-opened store in Sonora, Tuolumne County and requested a meeting with the Company. Since that time, the Company has been cooperating with the District Attorney to provide information regarding the alleged violations. In May 2016, the discussions with the District Attorney were extended to include non-compliance issues identified at an existing store in San Jose during an inspection on March 16, 2016. In connection with this matter, the Company has accrued an immaterial amount. Although any monetary damages ultimately paid by the Company may exceed the accrued amount, it is not currently possible to estimate the amount of any such excess or the impact that any injunctive relief may have on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. Other Matters The Company is also subject to other private lawsuits, administrative proceedings and claims that arise in its ordinary course of business. A number of these lawsuits, proceedings and claims may exist at any given time. While the resolution of such a lawsuit, proceeding or claim may have an impact on the Company’s financial results for the period in which it is resolved, and litigation is inherently unpredictable, in management’s opinion, none of these matters arising in the ordinary course of business is expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or overall liquidity. |