Document and Entity Information
| Document and Entity Information - shares | 6 Months Ended | |
| Jun. 30, 2017 | Jul. 27, 2017 | |
| Document And Entity Information [Abstract] | ||
| Document Type | 10-Q | |
| Amendment Flag | false | |
| Document Period End Date | Jun. 30, 2017 | |
| Document Fiscal Year Focus | 2,017 | |
| Document Fiscal Period Focus | Q2 | |
| Entity Registrant Name | Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. | |
| Entity Central Index Key | 1,396,033 | |
| Current Fiscal Year End Date | --12-31 | |
| Entity Filer Category | Accelerated Filer | |
| Entity Common Stock, Shares Outstanding | 28,414,078 |
Condensed Consolidated Balance
| Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets - USD ($) $ in Thousands | Jun. 30, 2017 | Dec. 31, 2016 |
| Current Assets: | ||
| Cash and Cash Equivalents | $ 7,639 | $ 10,271 |
| Merchandise Inventories | 275,142 | 301,892 |
| Prepaid Expenses | 9,817 | 5,367 |
| Refundable Income Taxes | 29,620 | 31,429 |
| Other Current Assets | 2,865 | 5,346 |
| Total Current Assets | 325,083 | 354,305 |
| Property and Equipment, net | 108,703 | 115,004 |
| Goodwill | 9,693 | 9,693 |
| Other Assets | 5,395 | 3,542 |
| Total Assets | 448,874 | 482,544 |
| Current Liabilities: | ||
| Accounts Payable | 67,570 | 120,647 |
| Customer Deposits and Store Credits | 38,156 | 32,639 |
| Accrued Compensation | 8,114 | 9,193 |
| Sales and Income Tax Liabilities | 4,203 | 4,249 |
| Other Current Liabilities | 40,625 | 19,984 |
| Total Current Liabilities | 158,668 | 186,712 |
| Other Long-Term Liabilities | 18,604 | 21,142 |
| Deferred Tax Liability | 2,788 | 3,798 |
| Revolving Credit Facility | 57,000 | 40,000 |
| Total Liabilities | 237,060 | 251,652 |
| Stockholders' Equity: | ||
| Common Stock ($0.001 par value; 35,000 shares authorized; 31,297 and 31,102 shares issued and 28,414 and 28,249 shares outstanding, respectively) | 31 | 31 |
| Treasury Stock, at cost (2,883 and 2,853 shares, respectively) | (140,043) | (139,420) |
| Additional Capital | 206,030 | 202,700 |
| Retained Earnings | 147,140 | 169,037 |
| Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss | (1,344) | (1,456) |
| Total Stockholders' Equity | 211,814 | 230,892 |
| Total Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity | $ 448,874 | $ 482,544 |
Condensed Consolidated Balance3
| Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Parenthetical) - $ / shares | Jun. 30, 2017 | Dec. 31, 2016 |
| Statement Of Financial Position [Abstract] | ||
| Common Stock, par value | $ 0.001 | $ 0.001 |
| Common Stock, shares authorized | 35,000,000 | 35,000,000 |
| Common Stock, shares issued | 31,297,000 | 31,102,000 |
| Common Stock, shares outstanding | 28,414,000 | 28,249,000 |
| Treasury Stock, shares | 2,883,000 | 2,853,000 |
Condensed Consolidated Statemen
| Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations - USD ($) $ in Thousands | 3 Months Ended | 6 Months Ended | ||
| Jun. 30, 2017 | Jun. 30, 2016 | Jun. 30, 2017 | Jun. 30, 2016 | |
| Income Statement [Abstract] | ||||
| Net Sales | $ 263,500 | $ 238,092 | $ 511,889 | $ 471,605 |
| Cost of Sales | 166,044 | 167,508 | 327,634 | 324,912 |
| Gross Profit | 97,456 | 70,584 | 184,255 | 146,693 |
| Selling, General and Administrative Expenses | 92,336 | 89,900 | 204,550 | 207,136 |
| Operating Income (Loss) | 5,120 | (19,316) | (20,295) | (60,443) |
| Other Expense | 516 | 131 | 1,028 | 282 |
| Income (Loss) Before Income Taxes | 4,604 | (19,447) | (21,323) | (60,725) |
| Income Tax Expense (Benefit) | 129 | (7,217) | 574 | (16,093) |
| Net Income (Loss) | $ 4,475 | $ (12,230) | $ (21,897) | $ (44,632) |
| Net Income (Loss) per Common Share-Basic | $ 0.16 | $ (0.45) | $ (0.77) | $ (1.65) |
| Net Income (Loss) per Common Share-Diluted | $ 0.16 | $ (0.45) | $ (0.77) | $ (1.65) |
| Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding: | ||||
| Basic | 28,394 | 27,108 | 28,342 | 27,100 |
| Diluted | 28,697 | 27,108 | 28,342 | 27,100 |
Condensed Consolidated Stateme5
| Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss) - USD ($) $ in Thousands | 3 Months Ended | 6 Months Ended | ||
| Jun. 30, 2017 | Jun. 30, 2016 | Jun. 30, 2017 | Jun. 30, 2016 | |
| Statement of Comprehensive Income [Abstract] | ||||
| Net Income (Loss) | $ 4,475 | $ (12,230) | $ (21,897) | $ (44,632) |
| Foreign Currency Translation Adjustments | 80 | 22 | 112 | 339 |
| Total Other Comprehensive Income | 80 | 22 | 112 | 339 |
| Comprehensive Income (Loss) | $ 4,555 | $ (12,208) | $ (21,785) | $ (44,293) |
Condensed Consolidated Stateme6
| Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows - USD ($) $ in Thousands | 6 Months Ended | |
| Jun. 30, 2017 | Jun. 30, 2016 | |
| Cash Flows from Operating Activities: | ||
| Net Income (Loss) | $ (21,897) | $ (44,632) |
| Adjustments to Reconcile Net Loss: | ||
| Depreciation and Amortization | 8,716 | 8,867 |
| Stock-Based Compensation Expense | 2,469 | 3,085 |
| Stock-Based Portion of Provision for Securities Class Action | 15,420 | |
| Changes in Operating Assets and Liabilities: | ||
| Merchandise Inventories | 25,942 | (11,308) |
| Accounts Payable | (51,601) | 16,860 |
| Customer Deposits and Store Credits | 5,617 | (2,692) |
| Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets | 3,110 | (40,643) |
| Accrual for Multidistrict Litigation | 18,000 | |
| Other Assets and Liabilities | (7,112) | 31,318 |
| Net Cash Used in Operating Activities | (16,756) | (23,725) |
| Cash Flows from Investing Activities: | ||
| Purchases of Property and Equipment | (3,847) | (3,834) |
| Other Investing Activities | 250 | 575 |
| Net Cash Used in Investing Activities | (3,597) | (3,259) |
| Cash Flows from Financing Activities: | ||
| Borrowings on Revolving Credit Facility | 35,000 | 17,000 |
| Payments on Revolving Credit Facility | (18,000) | (5,000) |
| Payments on Capital Lease Obligations | (237) | |
| Other Financing Activities | 321 | 114 |
| Net Cash Provided by Financing Activities | 17,084 | 12,114 |
| Effect of Exchange Rates on Cash and Cash Equivalents | 637 | 899 |
| Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents | (2,632) | (13,971) |
| Cash and Cash Equivalents, Beginning of Period | 10,271 | 26,703 |
| Cash and Cash Equivalents, End of Period | 7,639 | $ 12,732 |
| Supplemental disclosure of non-cash operating and financing activities: | ||
| Installment payment of insurance premiums | $ 1,346 | |
Basis of Presentation
| Basis of Presentation | 6 Months Ended |
| Jun. 30, 2017 | |
| Basis of Presentation [Abstract] | |
| Basis of Presentation | Note 1. Basis of Presentation Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. and its direct and indirect subsidiaries (collectively and, where applicable, individually, the “Company”) engage in business as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hardwood flooring, and hardwood flooring enhancements and accessories, operating as a single business segment. The Company offers an extensive assortment of domestic and exotic hardwood species, engineered hardwood, laminate , resilient vinyl, engineered vinyl plank and wood-look ceramic tile flooring direct to the consumer. The Company also features the renewable flooring products, bamboo , engineered bamboo and cork, and provides a wide selection of flooring enhancements and accessories, including moldings, noise-reducing underlay ment , adhesives and flooring tools. These products are primarily sold under the Company’s private label brands, including the premium Bellawood brand. The Company also provides in-home delivery and installation services . The Company sells primarily to homeowners or to contractors on behalf of homeowners through a network of store locations in primary or secondary metropolitan areas . As of June 30, 2017, the Company’s 385 stores span ned 46 states in the United States (“U.S.”) and include d eight stores in Canada. In addition to the store locations, the Company’s products may be ordered, and customer questions/concerns addressed, through both its call center in Toano, Virginia, and its website, www.lumberliquidators.com . The Company finishes the majority of the Bellawood products on its finishing lines in Toano, Virginia, which along with the call center and corporate offices, represent the “Corporate Headquarters.” The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q for interim financial reporting pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) . In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal and recurring adjustments except those otherwise described herein) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements. However, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by U.S. generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements. Therefore, the interim condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes included in the Company’s annual report filed on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 201 6 . The condensed consolidated financial statements of the Company include the accounts of its wholly owned subsidiaries. All intercompany transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. The Company adopted Accounting Standards Update No. 2015-17 during the first quarter of 2017 and reclassified approximately $6.1 million of current deferred tax assets to long-term deferred tax liabilities on the prior-year balance sheet which now reflects a net deferred tax liability of $3.8 million, from the $9 .9 million previously disclosed . Results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 are n ot necessarily indicative of future results to be expected for the full year due to a number of factors, including seasonality . |
Summary of Significant Accounti
| Summary of Significant Accounting Policies | 6 Months Ended |
| Jun. 30, 2017 | |
| Summary of Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract] | |
| Summary of Significant Accounting Policies | Note 2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Fair Value of Financial Instruments The carrying amounts of financial instruments such as cash and cash equivalents, accounts payable and other liabilities approximates fair value because of the short-term nature of these items. The carrying amount of obligations under the revolving credit facility approximates fair value due to the variable rate of interest. The fair values of these financial instruments are classified as Level 1 as defined in the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) ASC 820 fair value hierarchy. Merchandise Inventories The Company values merchandise inventories at the lower of cost or market value. The Company periodically reviews the carrying value of items in inventory and records a lower of cost or market adjustment when there is evidence that the utility of inventory will be less than its cost. In determining market value, the Company makes judgments and estimates as to the market value of its products, based on factors such as historical results and current sales trends. Although the Company believes its products are appropriately valued as of the balance sheet date, there can be no assurance that future events or changes in key assumptions would not significantly impact their value. Recognition of Net Sales The Company recognizes net sales for products purchased at the time the customer takes possession of the merchandise. Service revenue, primarily installation revenue and freight charges for in-home delivery, is included in net sales and recognized once the service has been rendered. The Company reports sales exclusive of sales taxes collected from customers and remitted to governmental taxing authorities, and net of an allowance for anticipated sales returns based on historical and current sales trends and experience. The sales returns allowance and related charges were not significant for the three and six month periods ended June 30 , 2017 and 2016. Cost of Sales Cost of sales includes the cost of the product sold, cost of installation services, transportation costs from vendor to the Company’s distribution centers or store locations, any applicable finishing costs related to production of the Company’s proprietary brands, transportation costs from distribution centers to store locations, transportation costs for the delivery of products from store locations to customers, certain costs of quality control procedures, warranty and customer satisfaction costs, inventory adjustments including shrinkage, and costs to produce samples, reduced by vendor allowances. In early March 2015, the Company began voluntarily offering free indoor air quality screening to certain of its flooring customers who purchased laminate flooring sourced from China to address customer questions about the air quality in their homes (the “Air Quality Testing Program”). During the second quarter of 2016, the Company agreed with the Office of Compliance and Field Operations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) to continue its Air Quality Testing Program for customers who purchased laminate flooring sourced from China during the period from February 22, 2012 to February 27, 2015. The form of the testing program agreed to with the CPSC was substantially similar to the Air Quality Testing Program the Company had operated since March 2015. In connection with the continuation of the Air Quality Testing Program, the Company recorded a charge to cost of sales of approximately $ 3 million in the second quarter of 2016 that represented the Company’s best estimate of the costs to continue the Air Quality Testing Program. Estimating the reserve for costs associated with the Company’s Air Quality Testing Program requires management to estimate (1) the number of future requests for indoor air quality testing, (2) the results of that testing and (3) the average cost to fulfill each request, all of which are subject to variables that are inherently uncertain. The Company projects its best estimate of both the expected number of test kit requests and the percentage of those tests that will require further testing using the Company’s Air Quality Testing Program history and reserves for those costs. Actual liabilities could be higher or lower than those projected due to the referenced uncertainty in a number of these variables. During the second quarter of 2017, the Company reduced its estimate of the number of test kit requests based on its experience, and reduced its estimate of the administrative costs of the Air Quality Testing Program. The revised estimates were in part prompted by the CPSC’s July 2017 decision to close this case with the Company and terminate its monitoring activity of the Air Quality Testing Program. The Company will continue to offer tests kits to qualifying customers, but the lower total estimated future costs of the Air Quality Testing Program resulted in a reduction in the reserve and the corresponding offset to cost of sales. At June 30, 2017, the Company’s estimate of its future costs for the Air Quality Testing Program through June 30, 2018 is approximately $0.2 million . Beyond that time the Company expects the costs of the Air Quality Testing Program, if any, to be negligible. A rollforward of the reserve for the Company’s Air Quality Testing Program was as follows: 2017 2016 Balance at January 1 $ 1,500 $ 809 Provision - 6,187 Revision of estimate (993) - Payments (302) (3,407) Balance at June 30 $ 205 $ 3,589 Recent Accounting Pronouncements In March 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-09, which amends ASC Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation , which simplifies the accounting for employee share-based payments. The new standard requires the immediate recognition of all excess tax benefits and deficiencies in the income statement (rather than equity), and was adopted in the first quarter of 2017 on a prospective basis. The standard also requires classification of excess tax benefits as an operating activity as opposed to a financing activity in the statements of cash flows. The Company applied this amendment of the standard on a retrospective basis starting in the first quarter of 2017. In the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, there were no excess tax benefits recognized. The standard also clarifies that all cash payments made to taxing authorities on the employees' behalf for shares withheld should be presented as financing activities on the statements of cash flows, which is consistent with the Company’s current practice. Finally, the standard provides for a policy election to either estimate the number of awards that are expected to vest or account for forfeitures as they occur. The Company will continue to include the impact of estimated forfeitures when determining share-based compensation expense. In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2014-09 (“ASU 2014-09”), which creates ASC Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers , and supersedes the revenue recognition requirements in Topic 605, Revenue Recognition , including most industry-specific revenue recognition guidance throughout the Industry Topics of the Codification. In addition, ASU 2014-09 supersedes the cost guidance in Subtopic 605-35, Revenue Recognition — Construction -Type and Production-Type Contracts , and creates new Subtopic 340-40, Other Assets and Deferred Costs — Contracts with Customers . The core principle of Topic 606 is that an entity recognizes revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. In August 2015, FASB issued ASU 2015-14, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Deferral of the Effective Date , which deferred the effective date of ASU 2014-09 to reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016. The Company will adopt this ASU on January 1, 2018. Companies may use either a full retrospective or a modified retrospective approach to adopt this ASU. The Company established a cross-functional team in 2016 to review its current accounting policies and practices, assess the effect of the standard on its revenue contracts and identify potential differences. In addition, the Company continues to refine its business processes and controls to support recognition and disclosure under the new standard. Based on work to date, the Company has preliminarily concluded that (i) its merchandise and installation sales order arrangements each independently meet the definition of a contract when each arrangement is delivered to its customers ; (ii) the transaction price as impacted by sales returns and promotional activities will be similar to what it currently recognizes, including financing arrangements it offers to its customers; (iii) sales commission costs it pays to its employees will be recognized in a fashion similar to today; and (iv) installation sales will continue to be recognized on a gross basis. The Company is also continuing to review the impact of this standard on potential disclosure chan ges in its financial statements and monitor the preliminary conclusions reached on its revenue streams ; it currently expects to elect the modified retrospective method of transition. In February 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-02 (“ASU 2016-02”), which creates ASC Topic 842, Leases , and supersedes the lease accounting requirements in Topic 840, Leases . In summary, Topic 842 requires organizations that lease assets — referred to as “lessees” — to recognize on the balance sheet the assets and liabilities for the rights and obligations created by those leases. The amendments in ASU 2016-02 are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2018. Therefore, the amendments in ASU 2016-02 will become effective for the Company at the beginning of its 2019 fiscal year. The Company is currently assessing the impact of implementing the new guidance on its consolidated financial statements. When implemented, the standard is expected to have a material impact as operating leases will be recognized on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet. |
Stockholders' Equity
| Stockholders' Equity | 6 Months Ended |
| Jun. 30, 2017 | |
| Stockholders' Equity [Abstract] | |
| Stockholders' Equity | Note 3. Stockholders’ Equity Net Loss per Common Share The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net loss per common share: Three Months Ended Six Months Ended June 30, June 30, 2017 2016 2017 2016 Net Income (Loss) $ 4,475 $ (12,230) $ (21,897) $ (44,632) Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding—Basic 28,394 27,108 28,342 27,100 Effect of Dilutive Securities: Common Stock Equivalents 303 — — — Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding—Diluted 28,697 27,108 28,342 27,100 Net Income (Loss) per Common Share—Basic $ 0.16 $ (0.45) $ (0.77) $ (1.65) Net Income (Loss) per Common Share—Diluted $ 0.16 $ (0.45) $ (0.77) $ (1.65) The following shares have been excluded from the computation of Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding—Diluted because the effect would be anti-dilutive: Three Months Ended June 30, Six Months Ended June 30, 2017 2016 2017 2016 Stock Options 223 916 766 856 Restricted Shares 20 580 428 515 Stock Repurchase Program The Company’s board of directors has authorized the repurchase of up to $150 million of the Company’s common stock. At June 30, 2017, the Company had approximately $14.7 million remaining u nder this authorization. The Company did not repurchase any shares of its common stock under this program during the three and six months ended June 30, 201 7 and 2016 . |
Stock-Based Compensation
| Stock-Based Compensation | 6 Months Ended |
| Jun. 30, 2017 | |
| Stock-Based Compensation [Abstract] | |
| Stock-Based Compensation | Note 4. Stock-Based Compensation The following table summarizes share activity related to stock options and restricted stock awards (“RSAs”): Stock Options Restricted Stock Awards Options Outstanding/Nonvested RSAs, December 31, 2016 836 586 Granted 106 196 Options Exercised/RSAs Released (58) (136) Forfeited (69) (61) Options Outstanding/Nonvested RSAs, June 30, 2017 815 585 |
Related Party Transactions
| Related Party Transactions | 6 Months Ended |
| Jun. 30, 2017 | |
| Related Party Transactions [Abstract] | |
| Related Party Transactions | Note 5. Related Party Transactions The Company leases stores, a warehouse, and the corporate headquarters, which includes a store location, from entities controlled by the Company’s founder, who was a stockholder and a member of the Company’s board of directors until December 31, 2016. Effective December 31, 2016, upon the departure of the Company’s founder from the board of directors, these transactions no longer meet the criteria of related party transactions. Rental expense related to these leases was $866 thousand and $1.7 million, respectively, for the three and six months ended June 30 , 2016. |
Income Taxes
| Income Taxes | 6 Months Ended |
| Jun. 30, 2017 | |
| Income Taxes [Abstract] | |
| Income Taxes | Note 6. Income Taxes The effective tax rate of 2.8% and (2.7)% for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017, respectively, principally was due to an increase to the Company’s valuation allowance offsetting its statutory income tax benefit adjusted for small discrete items that were recognized in the period. The Company has a valuation allowance due to its three-year cumulative net loss position . The effective tax rate of 37.1% and 26.5% for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, respectively, generally reflects statutory rates and the estimated pretax income for the remainder of 2016 that was projected at that time. At June 30, 2017 , refundable income taxes and the def erred tax liability were $29.6 million and $2.8 million , respectively. At December 31, 2016, refundable income taxes and the deferred tax liability were $31.4 million and $3.8 million, respectively. The Company files income tax returns with the U.S. federal government and various state and foreign jurisdictions. In the normal course of business, the Company is subject to examination by taxing authorities. The Internal Revenue Service is conducting audits of the Company’s income tax returns for the years 2013 through 2016. |
Commitments and Contingencies
| Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended |
| Jun. 30, 2017 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] | |
| Commitments and Contingencies | Note 7 . Commitments and Contingencies Governmental Investigations In March 2015, the Company received a grand jury subpoena issued in connection with a criminal investigation being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia (the “U.S. Attorney”). In addition, on May 19, 2015, July 13, 2015 and March 11, 2016, the Company received subpoenas from the New York Regional Office of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in connection with an inquiry by the SEC staff. Based on the subpoenas and the Company’s discussions to date, the Company believes the focus of both investigations primarily relates to compliance with disclosure, financial reporting and trading requirements under the federal securities laws since 2011. The Company is fully cooperating with the investigations and continues to produce documents and other information responsive to the subpoenas and other requests received from the parties. Given that the investigations are still ongoing and that no civil or criminal claims have been brought to date, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the investigations, the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters, or reasonably estimate the possible range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. Accordingly, no accruals have been made with respect to these matters. Any action by the U.S. Attorney or the SEC with respect to these matters could include civil or criminal proceedings and could involve fines, damage awards, regulatory consequences or other sanctions which could have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company’s liquidity, financial condition or results of operations. Litigation Relating to Chinese Laminates Formaldehyde-Related Cases Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous purported class action cases were filed in various U.S. federal district courts and state courts involving claims of excessive formaldehyde emissions from the Company’s flooring products (collectively, the “Products Liability Cases”). The plaintiffs in these various actions sought recovery under a variety of theories, which although not identical are generally similar, including negligence, breach of warranty, state consumer protection act violations, state unfair competition act violations, state deceptive trade practices act violations, false advertising, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, failure to warn, unjust enrichment and similar claims. The purported classes consisted either or both of all U.S. consumers or state consumers that purchased the subject products in certain time periods. The plaintiffs also sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief and various damages, including restitution, actual, compensatory, consequential, and, in certain cases, punitive damages, and interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees incurred by the plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with the alleged claims, and orders certifying the actions as class actions. Plaintiffs did not quantify damages sought from the Company in these class actions. On June 12, 2015, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “MDL Panel”) issued an order transferring and consolidating ten of the related federal class actions to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the “Virginia Court”). In a series of subsequent conditional transfer orders, the MDL Panel has transferred the other cases to the Virginia Court. The Company continues to seek to have any newly filed cases transferred and consolidated in the Virginia Court and, ultimately, it expects all federal class actions involving formaldehyde allegations, including any newly filed cases, to be transferred and consolidated in the Virginia Court. The consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation (the “MDL”). Pursuant to a court order, plaintiffs filed a Representative Class Action Complaint in the Virginia Court on September 11, 2015. The complaint challenged the Company’s labeling of its flooring products and asserted claims under California, New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas law for fraudulent concealment, violation of consumer protection statutes, negligent misrepresentation and declaratory relief, as well as a claim for breach of implied warranty under California law. Thereafter, on September 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed the First Amended Representative Class Action Complaint (“FARC”) in which they added implied warranty claims under New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas law, as well as a federal warranty claim. The Company filed a motion to dismiss and answered the FARC. The Virginia Court granted the motion as to claims for negligent misrepresentation filed on behalf of certain plaintiffs, deferred as to class action allegations, and otherwise denied the motion. The Company also filed a motion to strike nationwide class allegations, on which the Virginia Court has not yet ruled. The Company also filed a motion to strike all personal injury claims made in class action complaints. Plaintiffs subsequently agreed and the Virginia Court has ordered that no Chinese formaldehyde class action pending in this lawsuit will seek damages for personal injury on a class-wide basis. The order does not affect any claims for personal injury brought solely on an individual basis. The Company’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ First Amended Representative Complaint in the MDL was granted in part and denied in part, and its motion to exclude expert reports and testimony by plaintiffs’ experts related to deconstructive testing was denied. In addition, on or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele (“Steele”) filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior Court of Justice against the Company. In the complaint, Steele’s allegations include (i) strict liability, (ii) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (iii) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (iv) fraud by concealment, (v) civil negligence, (vi) negligent misrepresentation, and (vii) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Steele did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, Steele seeks (a) compensatory damages, (b) punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages, and (c) statutory remedies related to the Company’s breach of various laws including the Sales of Goods Act, the Consumer Protection Act, the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. Abrasion-Related Cases On May 20, 2015, a purported class action titled Abad v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and two amended complaints were subsequently filed. In the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), the plaintiffs (collectively, the “Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs”) sought to certify a national class composed of “All Persons in the United States who purchased Defendant’s Dream Home brand laminate flooring products (the “Dream Home Product”) from Defendant for personal use in their homes,” or, in the alternative, 32 statewide classes from California, North Carolina, Texas, New Jersey, Florida, Nevada, Connecticut, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, West Virginia, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois and Louisiana. The products that are the subject of these complaints are part of the same products at issue in the MDL. The SAC alleges violations of each of these states’ consumer protections statutes and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, as well as breach of implied warranty and fraudulent concealment. The Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in the SAC but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, sought an order certifying the action as a class action, an order adopting the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs’ class definitions and finding that the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs are their proper representatives, an order appointing their counsel as class counsel, injunctive relief prohibiting the Company from continuing to advertise and/or sell laminate flooring products with false abrasion class ratings, restitution of all monies it received from the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs and class members, damages (actual, compensatory, and consequential) and punitive damages. The Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint and the Company moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The court decided that it would decide the motion only as to the California plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs) and ordered that all the non-California plaintiffs (collectively, the “Non-California Abrasion Plaintiffs”) be dropped from the action with leave to re-file. Many of the Non-California Abrasion Plaintiffs re-filed separate complaints in the Central District of California within the required 60-day period, which were then transferred to the district court located in the place of residence of each Non-California Abrasion Plaintiff. These complaints included similar causes of action and sought similar relief as those of the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs. On October 3, 2016, the MDL Panel issued an order transferring and consolidating sixteen of the federal abrasion class actions to the Virginia Court. In subsequent conditional transfer orders, the MDL Panel transferred other cases to the Virginia Court. The Company will seek to have any additional related cases transferred and consolidated in the Virginia Court. The consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Laminate Flooring Durability Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (the “Abrasion MDL”). The Virginia Court issued an initial pretrial order instructing all parties to undertake certain discovery and planning tasks and scheduled certain preliminary conferences. Pursuant to a court order, on February 27, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a Representative Class Action Complaint in the Virginia Court. The complaint challenged the durability of the Dream Home Product and asserted claims under Alabama, California, Nevada, New York and Virginia law for breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and violation of consumer protection statutes. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the representative complaint, which the Virginia Court granted in part. The Company also filed a motion to strike irrelevant and prejudicial allegations from the representative complaint, which is currently pending. Estimated Liability Associated with Formaldehyde and Abrasion MDL’s In April 2017, the Company initiated settlement discussions to jointly settle the MDL and the Abrasion MDL. As a result of this and other developments, the Company recognized an estimated liability of $18 million in its results of operations (within selling, general and administrative expenses) for the three months ended March 31, 2017, with a corresponding current liability on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as the Company determined a loss was both probable and reasonably estimable, with no additional accrual recorded during the quarter ended June 30, 2017. This is an estimate and significant uncertainty remains regarding whether a reasonable settlement can be reached, and the timing, amount and form of any ultimate loss. The Company believes that such a settlement may be funded by a combination of cash, shares of common stock, and coupons. In July 2017, the Virginia Court appointed lead settlement counsel for the plaintiffs in each of the MDL and Abrasion MDL, and directed the parties to mediate before another federal judge of the Eastern District of Virginia for purposes of settlement discussions. The ultimate resolution of the MDL and the Abrasion MDL matters, including the form of any settlement or any loss in the absence of a settlement, could have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity. The Company will monitor new information or developments in these contingencies in future reporting periods and adjust its accruals, as necessary, in accordance with ASC 450-20-25. The Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible loss in excess of the amounts previously accrued. If the Company is unable to reach a reasonable settlement, the Company will defend the matter vigorously and believes there are meritorious defenses and legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits. The Company does not have insurance coverage with respect to the MDL and Steele matters, and may have limited insurance coverage relative to the Abrasion MDL. In addition to the MDL, the Steele matters, and the Abrasion MDL, there are a number of individual claims and lawsuits alleging (i) damages due to excessive formaldehyde emissions and (ii) damages similar to those in the Abrasion MDL. While the Company believes that a loss associated with these additional matters and the Steele matter is reasonably possible, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible loss. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity. Gold Matter On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold (“Gold”) filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Morning Star bamboo flooring that the Company sells is defective. On February 13, 2015, Gold filed an amended complaint that added three additional plaintiffs (collectively with Gold, “Gold Plaintiffs”). The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court dismissed most of Gold Plaintiffs’ claims but allowed certain omission-based claims to proceed. Gold Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 16, 2015, then a Third Amended Complaint on January 20, 2016, and then a Fourth Amended Complaint on June 26, 2017. In the Fourth Amended Complaint, Gold Plaintiffs limited the complaint to the Company’s Morning Star Strand Bamboo flooring that the Company sells (the “Bamboo Product”) and allege that the Company has engaged in unfair business practices and unfair competition by falsely representing the quality and characteristics of the Bamboo Product and by concealing the Bamboo Product’s defective nature. In the Fourth Amended Complaint, Gold Plaintiffs limited the purported class of individuals to those who are residents of California, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, respectively, and purchased the Bamboo Product for personal, family, or household use. Gold Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, Gold Plaintiffs seek (i) a declaration that the Company’s actions violate the law and that it is financially responsible for notifying all purported class members, (ii) injunctive relief requiring the Company to replace and/or repair all of the Bamboo Product installed in structures owned by the purported class members, and (iii) a declaration that the Company must disgorge, for the benefit of the purported classes, all or part of the profits received from the sale of the allegedly defective Bamboo Product and/or to make full restitution to Gold Plaintiffs and the purported class members. Fact discovery in the matter is now complete. The Gold Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification seeking to certify state-wide classes for purchases of the Bamboo Product in California, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The Company filed an opposition to class certification and a motion to exclude the opinions of the Gold Plaintiffs’ experts. These motions are currently pending. The Company also filed a motion to dismiss the non-California plaintiffs, which is currently pending. In addition, there are a number of other claims and lawsuits alleging damages similar to those in the Gold matter. The Company disputes these and the Gold Plaintiffs’ claims and intends to defend such matters vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company is unable to estimate the amount of loss, or range of possible loss, at this time that may result from this action. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity. Antidumping and Countervailing D u ties Investigation In October 2010, a conglomeration of domestic manufacturers of multilayered wood flooring filed a petition seeking the imposition of antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duties (“CVD”) with the United States Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) against imports of multilayered wood flooring from China. This ruling applies to companies importing multilayered wood flooring from Chinese suppliers subject to the AD and CVD orders. The Company’s multilayered wood flooring imports from China accounted for approximately 7% , 6% and 10% of its flooring purchases in 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The Company’s consistent view through the course of this matter has been, and remains, that its imports are neither dumped nor subsidized. As part of its processes in these proceedings, following the original investigation, the DOC conducts annual reviews of the CVD and AD rates. In such cases, the DOC will issue preliminary rates that are not binding and are subject to comment by interested parties. After consideration of the comments received, the DOC will issue final rates for the applicable period, which may lag by a year or more. As rates are adjusted through the administrative reviews, the Company adjusts its payments prospectively based on the final rate. The Company will begin to pay the finalized rates on each applicable future purchase when recognized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The DOC made its initial determinations in the original investigation regarding CVD and AD rates on April 6, 2011 and May 26, 2011, respectively. On December 8, 2011, orders were issued setting final AD and CVD rates at a maximum of 3.3% and 1.5% , respectively. These rates became effective in the form of additional duty deposits, which the Company has paid, and applied retroactively to the DOC initial determinations. Following the issuance of the orders issued on December 8, 2011, a number of appeals were filed by several parties, including the Company, with the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) challenging, among other things, certain aspects that may impact the validity of the AD and CVD orders and the applicable rates. The Company participated in appeals of both the AD order and CVD order. The appeal of the CVD order was dismissed in June 2015. On January 23, 2015, the CIT issued a decision rejecting the challenge of the AD rate for all but one Chinese exporter. This decision was finalized on July 6, 2015, and appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) on July 31, 2015. On February 15, 2017, the CAFC vacated the CIT’s prior decision and remanded with instructions to the DOC to recalculate its AD rate. The DOC’s recalculation of rates was submitted to the CIT in July 2017 for a subsequent ruling by the court. The Company is unable to determine the impact of the CAFC’s decision to vacate the initial determination of AD rates; however, the DOC’s recalculation could materially impact the Company’s previously recorded loss related to the AD rates in the original investigation and subsequent annual reviews discussed below. In the first DOC annual review in this matter, AD rates for the period from May 26, 2011 through November 30, 2012 and CVD rates from April 6, 2011 through December 31, 2011 were modified to a maximum of 5.92% and a maximum of 0.83% , respectively, which resulted in an additional payment obligation for the Company, based on best estimates and shipments during the applicable window, of $833 thousand. The Company recorded this as a long-term liability on its accompanying consolidated balance sheet and in cost of sales in its second quarter 2015 financial statements. These AD rates have been appealed to the CIT by several parties, including the Company. While the appeal is still pending, the CIT has issued a remand to the DOC requesting reconsideration of certain AD rate calculations. Pursuant to the second annual review, in early July 2015, the DOC finalized the AD rate for the period from December 1, 2012 through November 30, 2013 at a maximum of 13.74% and the CVD rate for the period from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 at a maximum of 0.99% . The Company believes the best estimate of the probable additional amounts owed was $4.1 million for shipments during the applicable time periods, which was recorded as a long-term liability on its accompanying consolidated balance sheet and included in cost of sales in its second quarter 2015 financial statements. Beginning in July 2015, the Company began paying these rates on each applicable purchase. The company and other parties have appealed the AD rates relating to this second annual review to the CIT and that appeal is pending. The third annual review of the AD and CVD rates was initiated in February 2015. The third AD review covered shipments from December 1, 2013 through November 30, 2014. The third CVD review covered shipments from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013. In May 2016, the DOC issued the final CVD rate in the third review, which was a maximum of 1.38% . On July 13, 2016, the DOC set the final AD rate at a maximum of 17.37% . The Company has appealed the AD rates to the CIT, and the appeal is currently pending. The Company believes its best estimate of the probable additional amounts owed associated with AD and CVD is approximately $5.5 million for shipments during the applicable time periods. During the quarter ended June 30, 2016, the Company recorded this amount in other long-term liabilities in its balance sheet and as a charge to earnings in cost of sales on its statement of operations. In February 2016, the DOC initiated the fourth annual review of AD and CVD rates, which followed a similar schedule as the preceding review. The AD review covered shipments from December 1, 2014 through November 30, 2015. The CVD review covered shipments from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. In May 2017, the DOC issued the final CVD rate in the fourth review, which was a maximum of 1.45% , and, in June 2017, the final AD rate in the fourth review, which was a maximum of 0.00% . Petitioners have appealed the AD rates to the CIT, and the appeal is currently pending. The Company paid AD rates in excess of the final rates during the periods impacted by the fourth annual review in the amount of $2.5 million. Given the issuance of the final AD rates, the Company has recorded a receivable in this amount in other long-term assets in its balance sheet and as a benefit to earnings in cost of sales on its statement of operations. The total amount recorded in other long-term assets for the fourth annual review in the accompanying balance sheet is $2.5 million at June 30, 2017 and the total amount recorded in other long-term liabilities through the third annual review in the accompanying balance sheets was $10.4 million at June 30, 2017 and at December 31, 2016. The DOC initiated the fifth annual review of AD and CVD rates in February 2017, which is expected to follow the same schedule as preceding reviews. The AD review covers shipments from December 1, 2015 through November 30, 2016. The CVD review covers shipments from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. The 5 -year Sunset Review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on multilayered wood flooring (the “Sunset Review”) began in November 2016 at the ITC to determine whether to terminate the orders. The Company filed a notice of appearance and documentation required at this phase of the proceeding and intends to participate fully in the Sunset Review. The Sunset Review is expected to be completed in late 2017 or early 2018. Oth e r Matters The Company is also, from time to time, subject to claims and disputes arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, while the outcome of any such claims and disputes cannot be predicted with certainty, its ultimate liability in connection with these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or liquidity. |
Subsequent Events
| Subsequent Events | 6 Months Ended |
| Jun. 30, 2017 | |
| Subsequent Events [Abstract] | |
| Subsequent Events | Note 8. Subsequent Events In July 2017, the Company received a refund of $29.2 million from the IRS related to the carry back of its 2016 net operating losses to prior periods where it generated taxable income. This amount is reflected in refundable income taxes on the condensed consolidated balance sheet at June 30, 2017. The Company used $15 million of this refund to pay down its revolving credit facility, leaving an outstanding balance of $42 million as of July 31, 2017, with the remainder used for working capital. |
Summary of Significant Accoun15
| Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Policies) | 6 Months Ended |
| Jun. 30, 2017 | |
| Summary of Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract] | |
| Fair Value of Financial Instruments | Fair Value of Financial Instruments The carrying amounts of financial instruments such as cash and cash equivalents, accounts payable and other liabilities approximates fair value because of the short-term nature of these items. The carrying amount of obligations under the revolving credit facility approximates fair value due to the variable rate of interest. The fair values of these financial instruments are classified as Level 1 as defined in the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) ASC 820 fair value hierarchy. |
| Merchandise Inventories | Merchandise Inventories The Company values merchandise inventories at the lower of cost or market value. The Company periodically reviews the carrying value of items in inventory and records a lower of cost or market adjustment when there is evidence that the utility of inventory will be less than its cost. In determining market value, the Company makes judgments and estimates as to the market value of its products, based on factors such as historical results and current sales trends. Although the Company believes its products are appropriately valued as of the balance sheet date, there can be no assurance that future events or changes in key assumptions would not significantly impact their value. |
| Recognition of Net Sales | Recognition of Net Sales The Company recognizes net sales for products purchased at the time the customer takes possession of the merchandise. Service revenue, primarily installation revenue and freight charges for in-home delivery, is included in net sales and recognized once the service has been rendered. The Company reports sales exclusive of sales taxes collected from customers and remitted to governmental taxing authorities, and net of an allowance for anticipated sales returns based on historical and current sales trends and experience. The sales returns allowance and related charges were not significant for the three and six month periods ended June 30 , 2017 and 2016. |
| Cost of Sales | Cost of Sales Cost of sales includes the cost of the product sold, cost of installation services, transportation costs from vendor to the Company’s distribution centers or store locations, any applicable finishing costs related to production of the Company’s proprietary brands, transportation costs from distribution centers to store locations, transportation costs for the delivery of products from store locations to customers, certain costs of quality control procedures, warranty and customer satisfaction costs, inventory adjustments including shrinkage, and costs to produce samples, reduced by vendor allowances. In early March 2015, the Company began voluntarily offering free indoor air quality screening to certain of its flooring customers who purchased laminate flooring sourced from China to address customer questions about the air quality in their homes (the “Air Quality Testing Program”). During the second quarter of 2016, the Company agreed with the Office of Compliance and Field Operations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) to continue its Air Quality Testing Program for customers who purchased laminate flooring sourced from China during the period from February 22, 2012 to February 27, 2015. The form of the testing program agreed to with the CPSC was substantially similar to the Air Quality Testing Program the Company had operated since March 2015. In connection with the continuation of the Air Quality Testing Program, the Company recorded a charge to cost of sales of approximately $ 3 million in the second quarter of 2016 that represented the Company’s best estimate of the costs to continue the Air Quality Testing Program. Estimating the reserve for costs associated with the Company’s Air Quality Testing Program requires management to estimate (1) the number of future requests for indoor air quality testing, (2) the results of that testing and (3) the average cost to fulfill each request, all of which are subject to variables that are inherently uncertain. The Company projects its best estimate of both the expected number of test kit requests and the percentage of those tests that will require further testing using the Company’s Air Quality Testing Program history and reserves for those costs. Actual liabilities could be higher or lower than those projected due to the referenced uncertainty in a number of these variables. During the second quarter of 2017, the Company reduced its estimate of the number of test kit requests based on its experience, and reduced its estimate of the administrative costs of the Air Quality Testing Program. The revised estimates were in part prompted by the CPSC’s July 2017 decision to close this case with the Company and terminate its monitoring activity of the Air Quality Testing Program. The Company will continue to offer tests kits to qualifying customers, but the lower total estimated future costs of the Air Quality Testing Program resulted in a reduction in the reserve and the corresponding offset to cost of sales. At June 30, 2017, the Company’s estimate of its future costs for the Air Quality Testing Program through June 30, 2018 is approximately $0.2 million . Beyond that time the Company expects the costs of the Air Quality Testing Program, if any, to be negligible. A rollforward of the reserve for the Company’s Air Quality Testing Program was as follows: 2017 2016 Balance at January 1 $ 1,500 $ 809 Provision - 6,187 Revision of estimate (993) - Payments (302) (3,407) Balance at June 30 $ 205 $ 3,589 |
| Recent Accounting Pronouncements | Recent Accounting Pronouncements In March 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-09, which amends ASC Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation , which simplifies the accounting for employee share-based payments. The new standard requires the immediate recognition of all excess tax benefits and deficiencies in the income statement (rather than equity), and was adopted in the first quarter of 2017 on a prospective basis. The standard also requires classification of excess tax benefits as an operating activity as opposed to a financing activity in the statements of cash flows. The Company applied this amendment of the standard on a retrospective basis starting in the first quarter of 2017. In the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, there were no excess tax benefits recognized. The standard also clarifies that all cash payments made to taxing authorities on the employees' behalf for shares withheld should be presented as financing activities on the statements of cash flows, which is consistent with the Company’s current practice. Finally, the standard provides for a policy election to either estimate the number of awards that are expected to vest or account for forfeitures as they occur. The Company will continue to include the impact of estimated forfeitures when determining share-based compensation expense. In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2014-09 (“ASU 2014-09”), which creates ASC Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers , and supersedes the revenue recognition requirements in Topic 605, Revenue Recognition , including most industry-specific revenue recognition guidance throughout the Industry Topics of the Codification. In addition, ASU 2014-09 supersedes the cost guidance in Subtopic 605-35, Revenue Recognition — Construction -Type and Production-Type Contracts , and creates new Subtopic 340-40, Other Assets and Deferred Costs — Contracts with Customers . The core principle of Topic 606 is that an entity recognizes revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. In August 2015, FASB issued ASU 2015-14, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Deferral of the Effective Date , which deferred the effective date of ASU 2014-09 to reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016. The Company will adopt this ASU on January 1, 2018. Companies may use either a full retrospective or a modified retrospective approach to adopt this ASU. The Company established a cross-functional team in 2016 to review its current accounting policies and practices, assess the effect of the standard on its revenue contracts and identify potential differences. In addition, the Company continues to refine its business processes and controls to support recognition and disclosure under the new standard. Based on work to date, the Company has preliminarily concluded that (i) its merchandise and installation sales order arrangements each independently meet the definition of a contract when each arrangement is delivered to its customers ; (ii) the transaction price as impacted by sales returns and promotional activities will be similar to what it currently recognizes, including financing arrangements it offers to its customers; (iii) sales commission costs it pays to its employees will be recognized in a fashion similar to today; and (iv) installation sales will continue to be recognized on a gross basis. The Company is also continuing to review the impact of this standard on potential disclosure chan ges in its financial statements and monitor the preliminary conclusions reached on its revenue streams ; it currently expects to elect the modified retrospective method of transition. In February 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-02 (“ASU 2016-02”), which creates ASC Topic 842, Leases , and supersedes the lease accounting requirements in Topic 840, Leases . In summary, Topic 842 requires organizations that lease assets — referred to as “lessees” — to recognize on the balance sheet the assets and liabilities for the rights and obligations created by those leases. The amendments in ASU 2016-02 are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2018. Therefore, the amendments in ASU 2016-02 will become effective for the Company at the beginning of its 2019 fiscal year. The Company is currently assessing the impact of implementing the new guidance on its consolidated financial statements. When implemented, the standard is expected to have a material impact as operating leases will be recognized on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet. |
Summary of Significant Accoun16
| Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Tables) | 6 Months Ended |
| Jun. 30, 2017 | |
| Summary of Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract] | |
| Rollforward of the Reserve for Air Quality Testing Program | A rollforward of the reserve for the Company’s Air Quality Testing Program was as follows: 2017 2016 Balance at January 1 $ 1,500 $ 809 Provision - 6,187 Revision of estimate (993) - Payments (302) (3,407) Balance at June 30 $ 205 $ 3,589 |
Stockholders' Equity (Tables)
| Stockholders' Equity (Tables) | 6 Months Ended |
| Jun. 30, 2017 | |
| Stockholders' Equity [Abstract] | |
| Computation of Basic and Diluted Net Income (Loss) Per Common Share | The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net loss per common share: Three Months Ended Six Months Ended June 30, June 30, 2017 2016 2017 2016 Net Income (Loss) $ 4,475 $ (12,230) $ (21,897) $ (44,632) Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding—Basic 28,394 27,108 28,342 27,100 Effect of Dilutive Securities: Common Stock Equivalents 303 — — — Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding—Diluted 28,697 27,108 28,342 27,100 Net Income (Loss) per Common Share—Basic $ 0.16 $ (0.45) $ (0.77) $ (1.65) Net Income (Loss) per Common Share—Diluted $ 0.16 $ (0.45) $ (0.77) $ (1.65) |
| Anti-Dilutive Securities Excluded from Computation of Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding-Diluted | The following shares have been excluded from the computation of Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding—Diluted because the effect would be anti-dilutive: Three Months Ended June 30, Six Months Ended June 30, 2017 2016 2017 2016 Stock Options 223 916 766 856 Restricted Shares 20 580 428 515 |
Stock-Based Compensation (Table
| Stock-Based Compensation (Tables) | 6 Months Ended |
| Jun. 30, 2017 | |
| Stock-Based Compensation [Abstract] | |
| Summary of Activity Related to Stock Options and Restricted Stock Awards | The following table summarizes share activity related to stock options and restricted stock awards (“RSAs”): Stock Options Restricted Stock Awards Options Outstanding/Nonvested RSAs, December 31, 2016 836 586 Granted 106 196 Options Exercised/RSAs Released (58) (136) Forfeited (69) (61) Options Outstanding/Nonvested RSAs, June 30, 2017 815 585 |
Basis of Presentation (Narrativ
| Basis of Presentation (Narrative) (Detail) $ in Millions | Jun. 30, 2017USD ($)statestore | Dec. 31, 2016USD ($) |
| Basis of Presentation [Abstract] | ||
| Number of States in which Stores Operates | state | 46 | |
| Number of Stores | store | 385 | |
| Number of Canadian Stores | store | 8 | |
| Current deferred tax asset | $ | $ 6.1 | |
| Deferred tax liability | $ | $ 3.8 | $ 9.9 |
Summary of Significant Accoun20
| Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Narrative) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands | 3 Months Ended | 6 Months Ended | ||
| Jun. 30, 2016 | Jun. 30, 2016 | Jun. 30, 2017 | Dec. 31, 2016 | |
| Organization And Business Operations [Line Items] | ||||
| Excess tax benefits from share based compensation | $ 0 | $ 0 | ||
| Current deferred tax asset | $ 6,100 | |||
| Long term deferred tax liability | $ 2,788 | $ 3,798 | ||
| Laminate [Member] | ||||
| Organization And Business Operations [Line Items] | ||||
| Costs incurred for air quality testing | $ 3,000 | |||
| Indoor air quality testing program reserve | $ 200 |
Summary of Significant Accoun21
| Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Rollforward of the Reserve for Air Quality Testing Program) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands | 6 Months Ended | |
| Jun. 30, 2017 | Jun. 30, 2016 | |
| Summary of Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract] | ||
| Air quality testing program accrual, Beginning balance | $ 1,500 | $ 809 |
| Provision | 6,187 | |
| Revision of estimate | (993) | |
| Payments | (302) | (3,407) |
| Air quality testing program accrual, Ending balance | $ 205 | $ 3,589 |
Stockholders' Equity (Narrative
| Stockholders' Equity (Narrative) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions | 3 Months Ended | 6 Months Ended | ||
| Jun. 30, 2017 | Jun. 30, 2016 | Jun. 30, 2017 | Jun. 30, 2016 | |
| Stockholders' Equity [Abstract] | ||||
| Stock Repurchase Program, Authorized Amount | $ 150 | $ 150 | ||
| Common Stock Repurchased, Remaining Authorized Amount | $ 14.7 | $ 14.7 | ||
| Treasury Stock, Shares, Acquired | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Stockholders' Equity (Computati
| Stockholders' Equity (Computation of Basic and Diluted Net Income Per Common Share) (Details) - USD ($) $ / shares in Units, $ in Thousands | 3 Months Ended | 6 Months Ended | ||
| Jun. 30, 2017 | Jun. 30, 2016 | Jun. 30, 2017 | Jun. 30, 2016 | |
| Stockholders' Equity [Abstract] | ||||
| Net Income (Loss) | $ 4,475 | $ (12,230) | $ (21,897) | $ (44,632) |
| Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding-Basic | 28,394 | 27,108 | 28,342 | 27,100 |
| Effect of Dilutive Securities: | ||||
| Common Stock Equivalents | 303 | |||
| Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding-Diluted | 28,697 | 27,108 | 28,342 | 27,100 |
| Net Income (Loss) per Common Share-Basic | $ 0.16 | $ (0.45) | $ (0.77) | $ (1.65) |
| Net Income (Loss) per Common Share-Diluted | $ 0.16 | $ (0.45) | $ (0.77) | $ (1.65) |
Stockholders' Equity (Anti-Dilu
| Stockholders' Equity (Anti-Dilutive Securities Excluded from Computation of Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding-Diluted) (Details) - shares | 3 Months Ended | 6 Months Ended | ||
| Jun. 30, 2017 | Jun. 30, 2016 | Jun. 30, 2017 | Jun. 30, 2016 | |
| Stock Options [Member] | ||||
| Antidilutive Securities Excluded from Computation of Earnings Per Share [Line Items] | ||||
| Anti-dilutive securities excluded from computation of earning per share | 223 | 916 | 766 | 856 |
| Restricted Shares [Member] | ||||
| Antidilutive Securities Excluded from Computation of Earnings Per Share [Line Items] | ||||
| Anti-dilutive securities excluded from computation of earning per share | 20 | 580 | 428 | 515 |
Stock-Based Compensation (Summa
| Stock-Based Compensation (Summarizes Share Activity Related to Stock Options and Restricted Stock Awards) (Details) | 6 Months Ended |
| Jun. 30, 2017shares | |
| Stock Options [Member] | |
| Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award [Line Items] | |
| Beginning Balance | 836 |
| Granted | 106 |
| Options Exercised/RSAs Released | (58) |
| Forfeited | (69) |
| Ending Balance | 815 |
| Restricted Shares [Member] | |
| Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award [Line Items] | |
| Beginning Balance | 586 |
| Granted | 196 |
| Options Exercised/RSAs Released | (136) |
| Forfeited | (61) |
| Ending Balance | 585 |
Related Party Transactions (Nar
| Related Party Transactions (Narrative) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands | 3 Months Ended | 6 Months Ended |
| Jun. 30, 2016 | Jun. 30, 2016 | |
| Controlled Companies | ||
| Related Party Transaction [Line Items] | ||
| Rental expense | $ 866 | $ 1,700 |
Income Taxes (Narrative) (Detai
| Income Taxes (Narrative) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions | 3 Months Ended | 6 Months Ended | |||
| Jun. 30, 2017 | Jun. 30, 2016 | Jun. 30, 2017 | Jun. 30, 2016 | Dec. 31, 2016 | |
| Income Taxes [Abstract] | |||||
| Effective tax rate | 2.80% | 37.10% | (2.70%) | 26.50% | |
| Refundable income taxes | $ 29.6 | $ 29.6 | $ 31.4 | ||
| Deferred tax liability | $ 2.8 | $ 2.8 | $ 3.8 | ||
Commitments and Contingencies (
| Commitments and Contingencies (Narrative) (Details) $ in Thousands | 1 Months Ended | 3 Months Ended | 6 Months Ended | 9 Months Ended | 12 Months Ended | 17 Months Ended | ||||||||||
| Jun. 30, 2017USD ($) | May 31, 2017 | Jul. 31, 2016 | May 31, 2016 | Jul. 31, 2015 | Mar. 31, 2017USD ($) | Jun. 30, 2017USD ($) | Dec. 31, 2011 | Dec. 31, 2016USD ($) | Dec. 31, 2015 | Dec. 31, 2014 | Dec. 31, 2011 | Nov. 30, 2012 | Jun. 30, 2016USD ($) | Jun. 30, 2015USD ($) | May 31, 2015item | |
| Antidumping Duties [Member] | ||||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingencies [Line Items] | ||||||||||||||||
| Environmental Compliance Plan, Outside Audit Period | 5 years | |||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingency Multilayered Hardwood Products Purchase Percentage | 7.00% | 6.00% | 10.00% | |||||||||||||
| Loss Contingency Purchase Price Of Antidumping Duty Rate | 3.30% | |||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingency Purchase Price Of Countervailing Duties Rate | 1.50% | |||||||||||||||
| Antidumping Duties [Member] | First Annual Review [Member] | ||||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingencies [Line Items] | ||||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingency, Estimate of Possible Loss | $ 833 | |||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingency Modified Purchase Price Of Antidumping Duty Rate, Maximum | 5.92% | |||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingency Modified Purchase Price Of Countervailing Duties Rate, Maximum | 0.83% | |||||||||||||||
| Antidumping Duties [Member] | Second Annual Review [Member] | ||||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingencies [Line Items] | ||||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingency, Estimate of Possible Loss | $ 4,100 | |||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingency Modified Purchase Price Of Antidumping Duty Rate, Maximum | 13.74% | |||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingency Modified Purchase Price Of Countervailing Duties Rate, Maximum | 0.99% | |||||||||||||||
| Antidumping Duties [Member] | Third Annual Review [Member] | ||||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingencies [Line Items] | ||||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingency, Estimate of Possible Loss | $ 5,500 | |||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingency Modified Purchase Price Of Antidumping Duty Rate, Maximum | 17.37% | |||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingency Modified Purchase Price Of Countervailing Duties Rate, Maximum | 1.38% | |||||||||||||||
| Antidumping Duties [Member] | Fourth Annual Review [Member] | ||||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingencies [Line Items] | ||||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingency, Receivable, Current | $ 2,500 | $ 2,500 | ||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingency, Estimate of Possible Loss | $ 10,400 | $ 10,400 | $ 10,400 | |||||||||||||
| Loss Contingency Modified Purchase Price Of Antidumping Duty Rate, Maximum | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingency Modified Purchase Price Of Countervailing Duties Rate, Maximum | 1.45% | |||||||||||||||
| Litigation Relating to Abrasion Claims [Member] | ||||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingencies [Line Items] | ||||||||||||||||
| Loss Contingency, Loss in Period | $ 18,000 | |||||||||||||||
| Potential Number of Statewide Classes in Litigation | item | 32 | |||||||||||||||
Subsequent Events (Narrative) (
| Subsequent Events (Narrative) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands | 1 Months Ended | 6 Months Ended | ||
| Jul. 31, 2017 | Jun. 30, 2017 | Jun. 30, 2016 | Dec. 31, 2016 | |
| Subsequent Event [Line Items] | ||||
| Repayment of revolving credit facility | $ 18,000 | $ 5,000 | ||
| Revolving credit facility outstanding | $ 57,000 | $ 40,000 | ||
| Subsequent Event [Member] | ||||
| Subsequent Event [Line Items] | ||||
| Tax refund received | $ 29,200 | |||
| Revolving Credit Facility [Member] | Subsequent Event [Member] | ||||
| Subsequent Event [Line Items] | ||||
| Repayment of revolving credit facility | 15,000 | |||
| Revolving credit facility outstanding | $ 42,000 | |||