| Commitments and Contingencies | Note 7. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation Relating to Bamboo Flooring In 2014, Dana Gold filed a purported class action lawsuit alleging that certain bamboo flooring that the Company sells (the “Strand Bamboo Product”) is defective (the “Gold Litigation”). On September 30, 2019, the parties finalized a settlement agreement that is consistent with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding previously disclosed by the Company, which would resolve the Gold Litigation on a nationwide basis. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company will contribute $14 million in cash and provide $14 million in store-credit vouchers, with a potential additional $2 million in store-credit vouchers based on obtaining a claim’s percentage of more than 7%, for an aggregate settlement of up to $30 million. The settlement agreement clearly indicates that the settlement does not constitute or include an admission by the Company of any fault or liability, and the Company does not admit any fault, wrongdoing or liability. On December 18, 2019, the court issued an order that, among other things, granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Following the preliminary approval, and pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, in December 2019, the Company paid Notice has been disseminated to the class members by the settlement administrator and final approval was granted by the court on October 22, 2020. The Company has notified its insurance carriers and continues to pursue coverage, but the insurers to date have denied coverage. As the insurance claim is still pending, the Company has not recognized any insurance recovery related to the Gold Litigation. The Company recognized a charge to earnings of $28 million within selling, general and administrative expense during the fourth quarter of 2018 as its loss became probable and estimable. During the third quarter of 2020, the Company recognized an additional charge to earnings for in-store vouchers of In addition, there are a number of individual claims and lawsuits alleging damages involving Strand Bamboo Product (the “Bamboo Flooring Litigation”). While the Company believes that a loss associated with the Bamboo Flooring Litigation 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. The Company disputes the claims in the Bamboo Flooring Litigation and intends to defend such matters vigorously. Litigation Relating to Chinese Laminates Formaldehyde-Abrasion MDLs On March 15, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the lead plaintiffs in the Formaldehyde MDL (as defined in Part II, Item 1 of this Form 10-Q) and Abrasion MDL (as defined in Part II, Item 1 of this Form 10-Q), cases more fully described in Part II, Item 1 of this Form 10-Q. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to fund $22 million in cash and provide $14 million in store-credit vouchers for an aggregate settlement of $36 million to settle claims brought on behalf of purchasers of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by the Company between January 1, 2009 and May 31, 2015. The Company deposited $22 million into an escrow account administered by the court and plaintiffs’ counsel in accordance with the final settlement. The final approval order by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has been appealed and is pending. The Company does not anticipate any change to its obligations, but must wait until the appeals are adjudicated or withdrawn. If the appeals were to result in the settlement being set aside, the Company would receive $21.5 million back from the escrow agent. Accordingly, the Company has accounted for the payment of $21.5 million which is included in the caption “Deposit for Legal Settlement” on its condensed consolidated balance sheet. While insurance carriers initially denied coverage with respect to the Formaldehyde MDL and Abrasion MDL, the Company continues to pursue recoveries that the Company believes are appropriate. The $36 million aggregate settlement amount was accrued within SG&A expenses in 2017. For approximately three years after a final ruling has been reached in this matter, plaintiffs will be able to redeem vouchers for product. Some of the states have alternative expiration dates while others have an indefinite amount of time to redeem vouchers. The Company will account for the sales of these products by relieving the relevant liability, reducing inventory used in the transaction and offsetting SG&A expenses for any profit. The Company does not know the timing or pace of voucher redemption. In addition to those purchasers who opted out of the above settlement (the “Opt Outs”), there are a number of individual claims and lawsuits alleging personal injuries, breach of warranty claims, or violation of state consumer protection statutes that remain pending (collectively, the “Related Laminate Matters”). Certain of these Related Laminate Matters were settled in 2019 and 2018, while some remain in settlement negotiations. The Company did not have any expense related to these matters for the nine months ended September 30, 2020. As of September 30, 2020, the remaining accrual related to these matters was $0.1 million, which has been included in the caption “Accrual for Legal Matters and Settlements Current” on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. For the nine months ended September 30, 2019, the Company recognized charges to earnings of $0.4 million within SG&A expenses for these Remaining Laminate Matters. While the Company believes that a further loss associated with the Opt Outs and Related Laminate Matters is reasonably possible, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible loss beyond what has been provided. If the Company incurs losses with the respect to the Opt Outs or further losses with respect to Related Laminate Matters, the ultimate resolution of these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity. Canadian Litigation 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 strict liability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud by concealment, civil negligence, negligent misrepresentation and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Steele did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint, but seeks compensatory damages, punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages, statutory remedies, attorneys’ fees and costs. While the Company believes that a loss associated with the Steele litigation is possible, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible loss. Employee Classification Matters Mason Lawsuit In August 2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and Osagie Ehigie 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, installation sales managers and similarly situated current and former employees (collectively, the “Mason Putative Class Employees”) alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) by classifying the Mason Putative Class Employees as exempt. The alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work. The plaintiffs sought certification of the Mason Putative Class Employees for (i) a collective action covering the period beginning three years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the disposition of this action for the Mason Putative Class Employees nationwide in connection with FLSA and (ii) a class action covering the period beginning six years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the disposition of this action for members of the Mason Putative Class Employees who currently are or were employed in New York in connection with NYLL. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified amounts for unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other damages. In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting conditional certification for all store managers and store managers in training who worked within the federal statute of limitations period. In May 2019, the magistrate judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification. The litigation is in the discovery stage, which was extended by the Court from May 2020 to December 18, 2020, and due to COVID-19 complications impacting discovery, the deadline has again been extended to March 31, 2021. The Company disputes the Mason Putative Class Employees’ claims and continues 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 reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and therefore no accrual has been made related to this. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and liquidity. Kramer lawsuit In November 2017, Robert J. Kramer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated (collectively, the “Kramer Plaintiffs”) filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento on behalf of all current and former store managers, all others with similar job functions and/or titles and all current and former employees classified as non-exempt or incorrectly classified as exempt and who worked for the Company in the State of California (collectively, the “CSM Employees”) alleging violation of the California Labor Code including, among other items, failure to pay wages and overtime and engaging in unfair business practices (the “Kramer matter”). The Company reached settlement for this matter in the third quarter of 2019. Payment of $4.75 million was made to the settlement administrator on April 6, 2020, for distribution to class members. Savidis Lawsuit On April 9, 2020, Lumber Liquidators was served with a lawsuit filed by Tanya Savidis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated (collectively, the “Savidis Plaintiffs”). Ms. Savidis filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda on March 6, 2020, on behalf of all current and former Lumber Liquidators employees employed as non-exempt employees. The complaint alleges violation of the California Labor Code including, among other items, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit rest breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon separation within the required time, and engaging in unfair business practices (the “Savidis matter”). On or about May 22, 2020, the Savidis Plaintiffs provided notice to the California Department of Industrial Relations requesting they be permitted to seek penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act for the same substantive alleged violations asserted in the Complaint. The Savidis Plaintiffs seek certification of a class action covering the prior four-year period prior to the filing of the complaint to the date of class certification (the “California Employee Class”), as well as a subclass of class members who separated their employment within three years of the filing of the suit to the date of class certification (the “Waiting Time Subclass”). The Savidis Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, seek statutory penalties, unspecified amounts for unpaid wages, benefits, and penalties, interest, and other damages. The Company disputes the Savidis Putative Class Employees’ 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. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and liquidity. Visnack Lawsuit On June 29, 2020, Michael Visnack, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated (collectively, the “Visnack Plaintiffs”) filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, on behalf of all current and former store managers, and others similarly situated. The Complaint alleges violation of the California Labor Code including, among other items, failure to pay wages and overtime, wage statement violations, meal and rest break violations, unpaid reimbursements and waiting time, and engaging in unfair business practices (the “Visnack matter”). The Visnack Plaintiffs seek certification of a class period beginning September 20, 2019, through the date of Notice of Class Certification, if granted. The Visnack Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, they seek unspecified amounts for each of the causes of action such as unpaid wages and overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, payroll record and wage statement violations, failure to reimburse expenses and waiting time, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other damages. The Company is evaluating the Visnack Putative Class Employees' claims and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. 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. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and liquidity. Section 301 Tariffs On September 10, 2020 several importers of vinyl flooring filed a lawsuit with the Court of International Trade (the “CIT”) challenging the Section 301 tariffs under Lists 3 and 4. The Company has also filed a companion case at the CIT challenging Section 301 tariffs it has paid and will pay. The action is in its early stages and the Company is unable to predict the timing or outcome of the ruling by CIT. Antidumping and Countervailing Duties 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 6% and 7% of its flooring purchases in 2019 and 2018, 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 such, it has appealed the original imposition of AD and CVD fees. As part of its processes in these proceedings, the DOC conducts annual reviews of the AD and CVD 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. At the time of import, the Company makes deposits at the then prevailing rate, even while the annual review is in process. When rates are declared final by the DOC, the Company accrues a receivable or payable depending on where that final rate compares to the deposits it has made. The Company and/or the domestic manufacturers can appeal the final rate for any period and can place a hold on final settlement by U.S. Customs and Border Protection while the appeals are pending. In addition to its overall appeal of the imposition of AD and CVD, which is still pending, the Company as well as other involved parties have appealed many of the final rate determinations. Those appeals are pending and, at times, have resulted in delays in settling the shortfalls and refunds shown in the table below. Because of the length of time for finalization of rates as well as appeals, any subsequent adjustment of AD and CVD rates typically flows through a period different from those in which the inventory was originally purchased and/or sold. Results by period for the Company are shown below. The column labeled ‘September 30, 2020 Receivable/Liability Balance’ represents the amount the Company would receive or pay (net of any collections or payments) as the result of subsequent adjustment to rates whether due to finalization by the DOC or because of action of a court based on appeals by various parties. It does not include any initial amounts paid for AD or CVD in the current period at the in-effect rate at that time. There are actions pending if accepted by the CIT that would reduce the Company’s liabilities as described in the footnotes to the table that follows. The Company recorded net interest expense related to antidumping of $0.4 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2020, with the amount included in other expense on the condensed consolidated statements of operations. The estimated associated interest payable and receivable for each period is not included in the table below but is included in the same financial statement line item on the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheet as the associated liability and receivable balance for each period. Review Rates at which September 30, 2020 Period Period Covered Company Final Rate Receivable/Liability Deposited Balance Antidumping 1 May 2011 through 6.78% and 3.3% 0.73% 1 $1.3 million November 2012 receivable 1 2 December 2012 through 3.30% 3.92% 2 $4.1 million November 2013 liability 2 3 December 2013 through 3.3% and 5.92% 0.0% 3 $4.7 million November 2014 liability 3 4 December 2014 through 5.92% and 13.74% 0.0% Settled November 2015 5 December 2015 through 5.92%. 13.74%. and 17.37% 0.0% Settled November 2016 6 December 2016 through 17.37% and 0.0% 42.57% and 0.0 % 4 $0.5 million receivable November 2017 $1.5 million liability 4 7 December 2017 through 0.0% Pending 5 NA November 2018 Included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet in $0.5 million Included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet in $1.3 million Included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet in $10.3 million Countervailing 1&2 April 2011 through 1.50% 0.83% / 0.99% $0.2 million December 2012 receivable 3 January 2013 through 1.50% 1.38% $0.05 million 4 January 2014 through 1.50% and 0.83% 1.06% $0.02 million 5 January 2015 through 0.83% and 0.99% Final at 0.11% and 0.85% 6 $0.08 million 6 6 January 2016 through 0.99% and 1.38% Final at 3.10% and 2.96% $0.04 million 7 7 January 2017 through 1.38% and 1.06% Pending 8 NA 8 January 2018 through 1.06% Pending NA Included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet in $0.1 million Included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet in $0.3 million Included on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet in Other Current Liabilities $0.04 million 1 In the second quarter of 2018, the CIT sustained the DOC’s recommendation to reduce the rate for the first annual review period to 0.73% (from 5.92% ). As a result, the Company reversed its $0.8 million liability and recorded a $1.3 million receivable with a corresponding reduction of cost of sales during the year ended December 31, 2018 . 2 In the second quarter of 2020, the CIT received a recommendation from the DOC to reduce the rate for the second annual review period to 3.92% (from 13.74%) . If accepted by the CIT, the Company will reverse $3.9 million of its $4.1 million liability currently recorded, with a corresponding reduction of cost of sales during the quarter when it is accepted. 3 In September 2020, the CIT received a recommendation from the DOC to reduce the rate for the third annual review period to 0.0% from 17.37% . If accepted by the CIT, the Company will reverse the entire $4.7 million liability currently recorded, with a corresponding reduction of cost of sales, as well as an additional $2.1 million receivable and favorable adjustment to cost of sales for deposits made at previous preliminary rates during the quarter when it is accepted. 4 In the third quarter of 2019, the DOC issued the final rates for the sixth annual review period at 42.57% and 0% depending on the vendor. As a result, the Company recorded a liability of $0.8 million with a corresponding reduction of cost of sales during the year ended December 31, 2019. The Company received payments during 2019 for its vendor with a final rate of 0% and the remaining balance of $0.5 million as of September 30, 2020 was included in other current assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. The vendors with a final rate of 42.57% are under appeal and the balance of $1.5 million as of September 30, 2020 was included in other long-term liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. 5 In January 2020, the DOC issued a preliminary rate of 0.0% for the seventh annual review period. 6 In the second quarter of 2018, the DOC issued the final rates for the fifth annual review period at 0.11% and 0.85% depending on the vendor. As a result, in the second quarter of 2018, the Company recorded a receivable of $0.08 million for deposits made at previous preliminary rates, with a corresponding reduction of cost of sales. 7 In the third quarter of 2019, the DOC issued the final rates for the sixth annual review period at 3.1% and 2.96% depending on the vendor. As a result, the Company recorded a liability of $0.4 million with a corresponding reduction of cost of sales during the year ended December 31, 2019 . The remaining balance, after payments, was approximately $40 thousand as of September 30, 2020. 8 In January 2020, the DOC issued a preliminary rate of 24.61% for the seventh annual review period. If the preliminary rate remains at 24.61% , the Company will record a liability of $2 million in the period in which the ruling is finalized . Other 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. |
