The Company was served on the following dates with the following nine complaints, each of which was brought as a purported class action on behalf of persons who made purchases at the Company’s stores in California using credit cards and were requested or required to provide personal identification information at the time of the transaction: (1) on February 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Maria Eugenia Saenz Valiente v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455049; (2) on February 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Scott Mossler v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455477; (3) on February 28, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Yelena Matatova v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455459; (4) on March 8, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Neal T. Wiener v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC456300; (5) on March 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of San Francisco, entitled Donna Motta v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-11-509228; (6) on March 30, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Alameda, entitled Steve Holmes v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. RG11563123; (7) on March 30, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of San Francisco, entitled Robin Nelson v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-11-508829; (8) on April 8, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of San Joaquin, entitled Pamela B. Smith v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. 39-2011-00261014-CU-BT-STK; and (9) on May 31, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Deena Gabriel v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC462213. On June 16, 2011, the Judicial Council of California issued an Order Assigning Coordination Trial Judge designating the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles as having jurisdiction to coordinate and to hear all nine of the cases as Case No. JCCP4667. On October 21, 2011, the plaintiffs collectively filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, alleging violations of the California Civil Code, negligence, invasion of privacy and unlawful intrusion. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that customers making purchases with credit cards at the Company’s stores in California were improperly requested to provide their zip code at the time of such purchases. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the class members, the following: statutory penalties; attorneys’ fees; expenses; restitution of property; disgorgement of profits; and injunctive relief. In an effort to negotiate a settlement of this litigation, the Company and plaintiffs engaged in Mandatory Settlement Conferences conducted by the court on February 6, 2013, February 19, 2013, April 2, 2013, September 12, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and also engaged in mediation conducted by a third party mediator on July 15, 2013. As a result of the foregoing, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. The settlement has not yet been submitted to the court for preliminary approval or final approval. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed that class members who submit valid and timely claim forms will receive either a $25 gift card (with proof of purchase) or a $10 merchandise voucher (without proof of purchase). Additionally, the Company agreed to pay plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs awarded by the court, enhancement payments to the class representatives and claims administrator’s fees. Under the proposed settlement, if the total amount paid by the Company for the class payout, class representative enhancement payments and claims administrator’s fees is less than $1.0 million, then the Company will issue merchandise vouchers to a charity for the balance of the deficiency in the manner provided in the settlement agreement. The Company’s estimated total cost pursuant to this settlement is reflected in a legal settlement accrual recorded in the third quarter of fiscal 2013. The Company admitted no liability or wrongdoing with respect to the claims set forth in the lawsuit. Once final approval is granted, the settlement will constitute a full and complete settlement and release of all claims related to the lawsuit. Based on the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company currently believes that settlement of this litigation will not have a material negative impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. However, if the settlement is not finally approved by the court, the Company intends to defend this litigation vigorously. If the settlement is not finally approved by the court and this litigation is settled or resolved unfavorably to the Company, this litigation and the costs of defending it could have a material negative impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. |