LL Flooring (LLFLQ) 10-Q 31 Oct 17 2017 Q3 Quarterly report Financial data

Document and Entity Information

Document and Entity Information - shares	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2017	Oct. 26, 2017
Document And Entity Information [Abstract]
Document Type	10-Q
Amendment Flag	false
Document Period End Date	Sep. 30, 2017
Document Fiscal Year Focus	2,017
Document Fiscal Period Focus	Q3
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		28,485,224

Condensed Consolidated Balance

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets - USD ($) $ in Thousands	Sep. 30, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Current Assets:
Cash and Cash Equivalents	$ 18,857	$ 10,271
Merchandise Inventories	252,949	301,892
Prepaid Expenses	8,924	5,367
Refundable Income Taxes	823	31,429
Other Current Assets	4,136	5,346
Total Current Assets	285,689	354,305
Property and Equipment, net	102,221	115,004
Goodwill	9,693	9,693
Other Assets	5,330	3,542
Total Assets	402,933	482,544
Current Liabilities:
Accounts Payable	40,190	120,647
Customer Deposits and Store Credits	39,843	32,639
Accrued Compensation	10,852	9,193
Sales and Income Tax Liabilities	6,237	4,249
Accrual for Multidistrict Litigation	36,000
Other Current Liabilities	21,959	19,984
Total Current Liabilities	155,081	186,712
Other Long-Term Liabilities	19,086	21,142
Deferred Tax Liability	3,002	3,798
Revolving Credit Facility	32,000	40,000
Total Liabilities	209,169	251,652
Stockholders' Equity:
Common Stock ($0.001 par value; 35,000 shares authorized; 31,389 and 31,102 shares issued and 28,485 and 28,249 shares outstanding, respectively)	31	31
Treasury Stock, at cost (2,904 and 2,853 shares, respectively)	(140,785)	(139,420)
Additional Paid-in-Capital	207,450	202,700
Retained Earnings	128,225	169,037
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss	(1,157)	(1,456)
Total Stockholders' Equity	193,764	230,892
Total Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity	$ 402,933	$ 482,544

Condensed Consolidated Balance3

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Parenthetical) - $ / shares	Sep. 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	31,389,000	31,102,000
Common Stock, shares outstanding	28,485,000	28,249,000
Treasury Stock, shares	2,904,000	2,853,000

Condensed Consolidated Statemen

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations - USD ($) $ in Thousands	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2017	Sep. 30, 2016	Sep. 30, 2017	Sep. 30, 2016
Income Statement [Abstract]
Net Sales	$ 257,185	$ 244,082	$ 769,074	$ 715,687
Cost of Sales	164,499	167,393	492,133	492,305
Gross Profit	92,686	76,689	276,941	223,382
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses	109,962	100,661	314,512	307,797
Operating Loss	(17,276)	(23,972)	(37,571)	(84,415)
Other Expense	377	168	1,405	450
Loss Before Income Taxes	(17,653)	(24,140)	(38,976)	(84,865)
Income Tax Expense (Benefit)	1,262	(5,702)	1,836	(21,795)
Net Loss	$ (18,915)	$ (18,438)	$ (40,812)	$ (63,070)
Net Loss per Common Share-Basic	$ (0.66)	$ (0.68)	$ (1.44)	$ (2.32)
Net Loss per Common Share-Diluted	$ (0.66)	$ (0.68)	$ (1.44)	$ (2.32)
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding:
Basic	28,454	27,197	28,380	27,132
Diluted	28,454	27,197	28,380	27,132

Condensed Consolidated Stateme5

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2017	Sep. 30, 2016	Sep. 30, 2017	Sep. 30, 2016
Statement of Comprehensive Income [Abstract]
Net Loss	$ (18,915)	$ (18,438)	$ (40,812)	$ (63,070)
Foreign Currency Translation Adjustments	187	(44)	299	295
Total Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)	187	(44)	299	295
Comprehensive Loss	$ (18,728)	$ (18,482)	$ (40,513)	$ (62,775)

Condensed Consolidated Stateme6

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows - USD ($) $ in Thousands	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2017	Sep. 30, 2016
Cash Flows from Operating Activities:
Net Income (Loss)	$ (40,812)	$ (63,070)
Adjustments to Reconcile Net Loss:
Depreciation and Amortization	13,038	13,183
Stock-Based Compensation Expense	3,563	4,478
Stock-Based Portion of Provision for Securities Class Action		19,670
Impairment and Loss on Disposal of Fixed Assets	1,491	389
Changes in Operating Assets and Liabilities:
Merchandise Inventories	48,277	(9,715)
Accounts Payable	(78,861)	19,869
Customer Deposits and Store Credits	7,288	(1,079)
Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets	33,144	(28,698)
Accrual for Multidistrict Litigation	36,000
Other Assets and Liabilities	(1,882)	34,751
Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Operating Activities	21,246	(10,222)
Cash Flows from Investing Activities:
Purchases of Property and Equipment	(5,514)	(8,268)
Other Investing Activities	819	575
Net Cash Used in Investing Activities	(4,695)	(7,693)
Cash Flows from Financing Activities:
Borrowings on Revolving Credit Facility	35,000	17,000
Payments on Revolving Credit Facility	(43,000)	(17,000)
Payments on Capital Lease Obligations	(351)
Payments on Financed Insurance Obligations	(367)
Payments for Debt Issuance Costs		(931)
Other Financing Activities	(18)	125
Net Cash Used in Financing Activities	(8,736)	(806)
Effect of Exchange Rates on Cash and Cash Equivalents	771	806
Net Decrease in Cash and Cash Equivalents	8,586	(17,915)
Cash and Cash Equivalents, Beginning of Period	10,271	26,703
Cash and Cash Equivalents, End of Period	18,857	$ 8,788
Supplemental disclosure of non-cash operating and financing activities:
Financed Insurance Premiums	$ 1,346

Basis of Presentation

Basis of Presentation	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 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 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 September 30, 2017, the Company’s 387 stores spanned 46 states in the United States (“U.S.”) and included 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 Accounti ng Standards Update No. 2015-17, Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes, 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 nine months ended September 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	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 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 carrying amount of certain assets being held for sale approximates fair value due to a contract with an unrelated third party to purchase these items. 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. Impairment of Long-Lived Assets The Company evaluates potential impairment losses on long-lived assets used in operations when events and circumstances indicate that the assets may be impaired, and the undiscounted cash flows estimated to be generated by those assets are less than the carrying amounts of those assets. If the fair value of the assets is less than the carrying value, an impairment loss is recorded based on the difference between the values. During the third quarter of 2017, the Company determined that the carrying value of certain assets that had once been part of a discontinued vertical integration strategy was above their fair value, and recorded an impairment charge of $1.5 million in SG&A expenses in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. The charge was measured as the difference between the fair value ( Level 2 inputs under ASC 820) of the assets and the carrying value of the related net assets based on a contract to sell to a third party. 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 nine month periods ended September 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 September 30, 2017, the Company’s estimate of its future costs for the Air Quality Testing Program through June 30, 2018 is approximately $0.1 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 (384) (4,896)  Balance at September 30 $ 123 $ 2,100   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 nine months ended September 30, 2016, the Company presented cash flows from excess tax benefits of approximately $54 thousand within financing activities. 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. 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 has drafted a disclosure required under the new standard in its financial statements and is continuing to 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 including educating employees of the breadth of the new standard and exploring the need for new software. 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	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 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 Nine Months Ended  September 30, September 30,  2017 2016 2017 2016  Net Loss $ (18,915) $ (18,438) $ (40,812) $ (63,070)  Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding—Basic 28,454 27,197 28,380 27,132  Effect of Dilutive Securities:  Common Stock Equivalents — — — —  Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding—Diluted 28,454 27,197 28,380 27,132  Net Loss per Common Share—Basic $ (0.66) $ (0.68) $ (1.44) $ (2.32)  Net Loss per Common Share—Diluted $ (0.66) $ (0.68) $ (1.44) $ (2.32) 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 September 30, Nine Months Ended September 30,  2017 2016 2017 2016  Stock Options 687 899 648 871  Restricted Shares 402 531 355 520 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 September 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 nine months ended September 30, 201 7 and 2016 .

Stock-Based Compensation

Stock-Based Compensation	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 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 125 206  Options Exercised/RSAs Released (88) (197)  Forfeited (179) (99)  Options Outstanding/Nonvested RSAs, September 30, 2017 694 496  

Related Party Transactions

Related Party Transactions	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 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 $805 thousand and $2.5 million, respectively, for the three and nine months ended September 30 , 2016.

Income Taxes

Income Taxes	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2017
Income Taxes [Abstract]
Income Taxes	Note 6. Income Taxes  The incurrence of tax expense of $1.2 million and $1.8 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, respectively, was a function of two factors: (a) discrete tax items related to audit adjustments arising from the IRS audits of 2013 through 2016 which were recognized in the periods and (b) an increase to the Company’s valuation allowance offsetting the income tax benefit that would otherwise have been recognized o n its operating loss (the Company has a valuation allowance due to its three-year cumulative loss position). The effective tax rate of 23.6% and 25.7% for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, respectively, reflects statutory rates somewhat offset by an increase in the valuation allowance. At September 30, 2017, refundable income taxes and the deferred tax liability were $0.8 million and $3 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 collected federal income tax refunds of $29.2 million and $22.1 million during the three months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, 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 that are substantially complete, subject to review by the Joint Committee on Taxation , and all adjustments resulting from that audit are reflected in the accompanying financial statements.

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 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. 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, with such mediation being held in September 2017. Subsequent to the mediation, on October 23, 2017, the Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the lead plaintiffs in the MDL and the Abrasion MDL. Under the terms of the MOU, the Company will contribute $22 million in cash and provide $14 million in store-credit vouchers for an aggregate settlement of $36 million to settle all claims brought on behalf of purchasers of Chinese-made laminate flooring sold by the Company between January 1, 2009 and May 31, 2015. The Company may fund the $22 million through a combination of cash and/or common stock. The MOU is subject to certain contingencies, including the execution of a definitive settlement agreement, board approval of the definitive settlement agreement, and court approvals of the definitive settlement agreement. There can be no assurance that a settlement will be finalized and approved or as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation. If a final, court-approved settlement is not reached, 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 believe it has insurance coverage with respect to the MDL, the Abrasion MDL and Steele matters.  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 (collectively, the “Other Matters”). While the Company believes that a loss associated with these Other 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.  As a result of these developments, the Company has determined that a probable loss has been incurred and has recognized an additional charge to earnings of $18 million within selling general and administrative expense during the third quarter of 2017. The Company had previously recognized a charge to earnings of $18 million in the first quarter of 2017, that when combined with the $18 million charge in the third quarter of 2017, will result in an aggregate $36 million liability on its balance sheet related to this potential settlement as of September 30, 2017. If the Company does not execute a definitive settlement agreement consistent with the MOU or incurs losses with the respect to the Other Matters , the ultimate resolution of these actions could still have a material adverse effect 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’s previously filed motion to dismiss the non-California plaintiffs on jurisdictional grounds was denied.  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.  Mason Lawsuit  On or about August 15, 2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and Osagie Ehigie (collectively, the “SM Plaintiffs”) filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all current and former store managers, store managers in training and similarly situated current and former employees holding comparable positions but different titles (collectively, the “SM Employees”) alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) by classifying the SM Employees as exempt. The alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work. The SM Plaintiffs seek certification of the SM Employees for (i) a collective action covering the period beginning three years and 115 days prior to the filing of the complaint through the disposition of this action for the SM Employees nationwide (the “Nationwide Collective Class”) in connection with FLSA and (ii) a class action covering the period beginning six years and 115 days prior to the filing of the complaint through the disposition of this action for members of the SM Employees who currently are or were employed in New York (the “NY SM Class”) in connection with NYLL. The SM Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, the SM Plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified amount for unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other damages. The Company disputes the SM Plaintiffs’ claims and intends to defend the matter 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 cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and therefore no accrual has been made related to this.  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 CIT is expected to hold oral arguments in late 2017. 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. On remand from the CIT, the DOC has reduced the AD rate to 0.73% . A final ruling from the CIT is still pending and is expected by late 2017 or early 2018 . If the CIT makes the reduced AD rate final, while such decision would be subject to appeal, the Company intends to reverse the $833 thousand accrual and record a receivable of approximately $1.3 million. The Company would record such receivable in other long-term assets in its balance sheet and as a benefit to earnings of approximately $2.1 million in cost of sales i n its statement of operations.  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% . In October 2017, petitioners withdrew their appeal of the AD rates. As a result, the CIT dismissed the case and the Company believes these rates are now final. 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, during the quarter ended June 30, 2017, the Company recorded a receivable in the amount of $2.5 million 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 liabilities through the third annual review in the accompanying balance sheets was $10.4 million at September 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 is participating 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.

Summary of Significant Accoun14

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Policies)	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 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 carrying amount of certain assets being held for sale approximates fair value due to a contract with an unrelated third party to purchase these items.
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.
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets	Impairment of Long-Lived Assets The Company evaluates potential impairment losses on long-lived assets used in operations when events and circumstances indicate that the assets may be impaired, and the undiscounted cash flows estimated to be generated by those assets are less than the carrying amounts of those assets. If the fair value of the assets is less than the carrying value, an impairment loss is recorded based on the difference between the values. During the third quarter of 2017, the Company determined that the carrying value of certain assets that had once been part of a discontinued vertical integration strategy was above their fair value, and recorded an impairment charge of $1.5 million in SG&A expenses in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. The charge was measured as the difference between the fair value ( Level 2 inputs under ASC 820) of the assets and the carrying value of the related net assets based on a contract to sell to a third party.
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 nine month periods ended September 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 September 30, 2017, the Company’s estimate of its future costs for the Air Quality Testing Program through June 30, 2018 is approximately $0.1 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 (384) (4,896)  Balance at September 30 $ 123 $ 2,100  
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 nine months ended September 30, 2016, the Company presented cash flows from excess tax benefits of approximately $54 thousand within financing activities. 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. 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 has drafted a disclosure required under the new standard in its financial statements and is continuing to 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 including educating employees of the breadth of the new standard and exploring the need for new software. 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 Accoun15

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Tables)	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 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 (384) (4,896)  Balance at September 30 $ 123 $ 2,100  

Stockholders' Equity (Tables)

Stockholders' Equity (Tables)	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 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 Nine Months Ended  September 30, September 30,  2017 2016 2017 2016  Net Loss $ (18,915) $ (18,438) $ (40,812) $ (63,070)  Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding—Basic 28,454 27,197 28,380 27,132  Effect of Dilutive Securities:  Common Stock Equivalents — — — —  Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding—Diluted 28,454 27,197 28,380 27,132  Net Loss per Common Share—Basic $ (0.66) $ (0.68) $ (1.44) $ (2.32)  Net Loss per Common Share—Diluted $ (0.66) $ (0.68) $ (1.44) $ (2.32) 
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 September 30, Nine Months Ended September 30,  2017 2016 2017 2016  Stock Options 687 899 648 871  Restricted Shares 402 531 355 520 

Stock-Based Compensation (Table

Stock-Based Compensation (Tables)	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 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 125 206  Options Exercised/RSAs Released (88) (197)  Forfeited (179) (99)  Options Outstanding/Nonvested RSAs, September 30, 2017 694 496  

Basis of Presentation (Narrativ

Basis of Presentation (Narrative) (Detail) $ in Millions	Sep. 30, 2017USD ($)statestore	Dec. 31, 2016USD ($)
Basis of Presentation [Abstract]
Number of States in which Stores Operates | state	46
Number of Stores | store	387
Number of Canadian Stores | store	8
Current deferred tax asset | $		$ 6.1
Deferred tax liability | $	$ 3.8	$ 9.9

Summary of Significant Accoun19

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Narrative) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2017	Sep. 30, 2016	Sep. 30, 2016
Organization And Business Operations [Line Items]
Asset impairment charge	$ 1,500
Cash flows from excess tax benefits from share based compensation		$ 54	$ 54
Laminate [Member]
Organization And Business Operations [Line Items]
Costs incurred for air quality testing		$ 3,000
Indoor air quality testing program reserve	$ 100

Summary of Significant Accoun20

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Rollforward of the Reserve for Air Quality Testing Program) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2017	Sep. 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	(384)	(4,896)
Air quality testing program accrual, Ending balance	$ 123	$ 2,100

Stockholders' Equity (Narrative

Stockholders' Equity (Narrative) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2017	Sep. 30, 2016	Sep. 30, 2017	Sep. 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		9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2017	Sep. 30, 2016	Sep. 30, 2017	Sep. 30, 2016
Stockholders' Equity [Abstract]
Net Income (Loss)	$ (18,915)	$ (18,438)	$ (40,812)	$ (63,070)
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding-Basic	28,454	27,197	28,380	27,132
Effect of Dilutive Securities:
Common Stock Equivalents
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding-Diluted	28,454	27,197	28,380	27,132
Net Loss per Common Share-Basic	$ (0.66)	$ (0.68)	$ (1.44)	$ (2.32)
Net Loss per Common Share-Diluted	$ (0.66)	$ (0.68)	$ (1.44)	$ (2.32)

Stockholders' Equity (Anti-Dilu

Stockholders' Equity (Anti-Dilutive Securities Excluded from Computation of Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding-Diluted) (Details) - shares	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2017	Sep. 30, 2016	Sep. 30, 2017	Sep. 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	687	899	648	871
Restricted Shares [Member]
Antidilutive Securities Excluded from Computation of Earnings Per Share [Line Items]
Anti-dilutive securities excluded from computation of earning per share	402	531	355	520

Stock-Based Compensation (Summa

Stock-Based Compensation (Summarizes Share Activity Related to Stock Options and Restricted Stock Awards) (Details)	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2017shares
Stock Options [Member]
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award [Line Items]
Beginning Balance	836
Granted	125
Options Exercised/RSAs Released	(88)
Forfeited	(179)
Ending Balance	694
Restricted Shares [Member]
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award [Line Items]
Beginning Balance	586
Granted	206
Options Exercised/RSAs Released	(197)
Forfeited	(99)
Ending Balance	496

Related Party Transactions (Nar

Related Party Transactions (Narrative) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	3 Months Ended	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2016	Sep. 30, 2016
Controlled Companies
Related Party Transaction [Line Items]
Rental expense	$ 805	$ 2,500

Income Taxes (Narrative) (Detai

Income Taxes (Narrative) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	3 Months Ended		9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2017	Sep. 30, 2016	Sep. 30, 2017	Sep. 30, 2016	Dec. 31, 2016
Income Taxes [Abstract]
Income Tax Expense (Benefit)	$ 1,262	$ (5,702)	$ 1,836	$ (21,795)
Effective tax rate		23.60%		25.70%
Refundable income taxes	800		800		$ 31,400
Deferred tax liability	3,000		$ 3,000		$ 3,800
Tax refund received	$ 29,200	$ 22,100

Commitments and Contingencies (

Commitments and Contingencies (Narrative) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands

Oct. 23, 2017

Oct. 30, 2017

Jun. 30, 2017

May 31, 2017

Jul. 31, 2016

May 31, 2016

Jul. 31, 2015

Dec. 31, 2011

Dec. 31, 2017

Sep. 30, 2017

Mar. 31, 2017

Sep. 30, 2017

Dec. 31, 2011

Dec. 31, 2016

Dec. 31, 2015

Dec. 31, 2014

Nov. 30, 2012

Jun. 30, 2016

Jun. 30, 2015

Loss Contingencies [Line Items]

Environmental Compliance Plan, Outside Audit Period

5 years

Antidumping Duties [Member]

Loss Contingencies [Line Items]

Loss Contingency, Estimate of Possible Loss

$ 10,400

$ 10,400

$ 10,400

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

0.73%

5.92%

Loss Contingency Modified Purchase Price Of Countervailing Duties Rate, Maximum

0.83%

Antidumping Duties [Member] | First Annual Review [Member] | Scenario, Plan [Member]

Loss Contingencies [Line Items]

Loss Contingency, Estimated Recovery

$ 2.1

Loss Contingency, Reversal of Estimate of Possible Loss

$ 833

Antidumping Duties [Member] | First Annual Review [Member] | Other Noncurrent Assets [Member] | Scenario, Plan [Member]

Loss Contingencies [Line Items]

Loss Contingency, Receivable, Noncurrent

$ 1,300

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

Loss Contingency Modified Purchase Price Of Antidumping Duty Rate, Maximum

0.00%

Loss Contingency Modified Purchase Price Of Countervailing Duties Rate, Maximum

1.45%

Antidumping Duties [Member] | Fourth Annual Review [Member] | Subsequent Event [Member]

Loss Contingencies [Line Items]

Settlement payment

$ 2,500

Litigation Relating to Formaldehyde Abrasion MDL's [Member]

Loss Contingencies [Line Items]

Loss Contingency, Loss in Period

$ 18,000

Settlement Liability, Current

$ 36,000

$ 36,000

Loss Contingency, Estimate of Possible Loss

$ 18,000

Litigation Relating to Formaldehyde Abrasion MDL's [Member] | Selling, General and Administrative Expenses [Member]

Loss Contingencies [Line Items]

Loss Contingency, Loss in Period

$ 18,000

Litigation Relating to Formaldehyde Abrasion MDL's [Member] | Subsequent Event [Member]

Loss Contingencies [Line Items]

Litigation Settlement, Amount

$ 36,000

Cash and or Common Stock [Member] | Litigation Relating to Formaldehyde Abrasion MDL's [Member] | Subsequent Event [Member]

Loss Contingencies [Line Items]

Litigation Settlement, Amount

22,000

In Store Credit [Member] | Litigation Relating to Formaldehyde Abrasion MDL's [Member] | Subsequent Event [Member]

Loss Contingencies [Line Items]

Litigation Settlement, Amount

$ 14,000