8.                                      Commitments and contingencies

Legal proceedings

On August 7, 2006, a lawsuit entitled Cynthia Richter, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 7:06-cv-01537-LSC) (“Richter”) in which the plaintiff alleges that she and other current and former Dollar General store managers were improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 15, 2006, the Richter plaintiff filed a motion in which she asked the court to certify a nationwide class of current and former store managers. The Company opposed the plaintiff’s motion. On March 23, 2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class. On December 2, 2009, notice was mailed to over 28,000 current or former Dollar General store managers. Approximately 3,950 individuals have opted into the lawsuit, approximately 800 of whom have been dismissed for various reasons, including failure to cooperate in discovery.

Except as to certain limited fact discovery, the discovery period has closed.  On April 2, 2012, the Company filed its decertification motion.  Plaintiff’s response to that motion was filed on May 9, 2012.  No deadline currently exists for potentially dispositive motions, and the Court has not set a trial date.

The Company believes that its store managers are and have been properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and that the Richter action is not appropriate for collective action treatment. The Company has obtained summary judgment in some, although not all, of its pending individual or single-plaintiff store manager exemption cases in which it has filed such a motion.

The Company is vigorously defending the Richter matter. However, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether Richter ultimately will be permitted to proceed collectively, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of the action on the merits or otherwise. Similarly, at this time the Company cannot estimate either the size of any potential class or the value of the claims asserted in Richter. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in the matter; however, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of Richter could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial statements as a whole.

On March 7, 2006, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Janet Calvert v. Dolgencorp, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00465-VEH (“Calvert”)), in which the plaintiff, a former store manager, alleged that she was paid less than male store managers because of her sex, in violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”) (now captioned, Wanda Womack, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00465-VEH). The complaint subsequently was amended to include additional plaintiffs, who also allege to have been paid less than males because of their sex, and to add allegations that the Company’s compensation practices disparately impact females. Under the amended complaint, plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under the Equal Pay Act and as a class under Title VII, and request back wages, injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On July 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion in which they asked the court to approve the issuance of notice to a class of current and former female store managers under the Equal Pay Act. The Company opposed plaintiffs’ motion. On November 30, 2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class of females under the Equal Pay Act who worked for Dollar General as store managers between November 30, 2004 and November 30, 2007. The notice was issued on January 11, 2008, and persons to whom the notice was sent were required to opt into the suit by March 11, 2008. Approximately 2,100 individuals opted into the lawsuit.

On April 19, 2010, the plaintiffs moved for class certification relating to their Title VII claims. The Company filed its response to the certification motion in June 2010. Briefing has closed, and the motion remains pending. The Company’s motion to decertify the Equal Pay Act class was denied as premature. If the case proceeds, the Company expects to file a similar motion in due course.

The parties agreed to mediate this action, and the court stayed the action pending the results of the mediation.  The mediation occurred in March and April, 2011, at which time the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter on behalf of the entire putative class. The proposed settlement, which has received preliminary approval from the court, provides for both monetary and equitable relief. Under the preliminarily approved terms, $15.5 million will be paid into a fund for the class members that will be apportioned and paid out to individual members (less any additional attorneys’ fees or litigation costs approved by the court), upon submission of a valid claim. An additional $3.25 million will be paid for plaintiffs’ legal fees and costs.  Of the total $18.75 million, the Company’s Employment Practices Liability Insurance (“EPLI”) carrier paid approximately $15.9 million in the first quarter of 2012 to a third party claims administrator to disburse the funds, per the settlement terms, to claimants and counsel pending final approval from the court, which represented the balance remaining of the $20 million EPLI policy covering the claims.The Company paid approximately $2.8 million to the third party claims administrator.  In addition, the Company agreed to make, and, effective April 1, 2012, has made, certain adjustments to its pay setting policies and procedures for new store managers.  A hearing regarding final approval of the settlement is scheduled for July 23, 2012.  Because it deemed settlement probable and estimable, the Company accrued for the net settlement as well as for certain additional anticipated fees related thereto during the first quarter of 2011, and concurrently recorded a receivable of approximately $15.9 million from its EPLI carrier. Due to the payments described above, the accrual and receivable were each relieved during the first quarter of 2012.

At this time, although probable it is not certain that the court will grant final approval to the settlement. If it does not, and the case proceeds, it is not possible at this time to predict whether the court ultimately will permit the action to proceed collectively under the Equal Pay Act or as a class under Title VII. Although the Company intends to vigorously defend the action, no assurances can be given that it would be successful in the defense on the merits or otherwise. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company cannot estimate either the size of any potential class or the value of the claims raised in this action if it proceeds. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in such a scenario; however, if the Company is not successful in defending this action, its resolution could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial statements as a whole.

On April 9, 2012, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entitled Jonathan Marcum v. Dolgencorp. Inc. (Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-00108-JRS) in which the plaintiff, whose conditional offer of employment was rescinded, alleges defamation and that certain of the Company’s background check procedures violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).  According to the complaint, the plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of applicants in connection with his FCRA claims.  The Company’s response to the complaint is due to be filed on June 15, 2012.

At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the court ultimately will permit the action to proceed as a class under the FCRA.  Although the Company intends to vigorously defend the action, no assurances can be given that it will be successful in the defense on the merits or otherwise.  At this stage in the proceedings, the Company cannot estimate either the size of any potential class or the value of the claims raised by the plaintiff.  For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in such a scenario; however, if the Company is not successful in defending this action, its resolution could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial statements as a whole.

In September 2011, the Chicago Regional Office of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”) notified the Company of a cause finding related to the Company’s criminal background check policy.  The cause finding alleges that Dollar General’s criminal background check policy, which excludes from employment individuals with certain criminal convictions for specified periods, has a disparate impact on African-American candidates and employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

The Company and the EEOC have been engaged in the statutorily required conciliation process.  Although the Company will continue to conciliate in good faith, it believes that its criminal background check process is both lawful and necessary to a safe environment for its employees and customers and the protection of its assets and shareholders’ investments.

Based on the Commission’s recent conciliation demands, the Company is not optimistic regarding the likelihood that the conciliation process will be successful.  If it is not, litigation may ensue.  The Company does not believe that this matter would be amenable to class or similar treatment; however, because at this time the Company cannot estimate or determine the form that any ultimate litigation would take, the size of any putative class or the damages or other recoveries that would be sought, it cannot estimate the potential exposure.  If the matter were to proceed successfully as a class or similar action, it could have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements as a whole.

On May 20, 2011, a lawsuit entitled Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al. v. Dolgencorp, LLC was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:11-cv-80601-DMM) (“Winn-Dixie”) in which the plaintiffs allege that the sale of food and other items in approximately 55 of the Company’s stores, each of which allegedly is or was at some time co-located in a shopping center with one of plaintiffs’ stores, violates restrictive covenants that plaintiffs contend are binding on the occupants of the shopping centers.  Plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction limiting the sale of food and other items in those stores.  Although plaintiffs have not made a demand for any specific amount of damages at this point in the proceeding, documents prepared and produced by plaintiffs during discovery suggest that plaintiffs seek as much as $47 million although the court limited their ability to prove such damages. The Company has vigorously defended the Winn-Dixie matter and views that sum as wholly without basis and unsupported by the law and the facts. The various leases involved in the matter are unique in their terms and/or the factual circumstances surrounding them, and, in some cases, the stores named by plaintiffs are not now and have never been co-located with plaintiffs’ stores. The court granted the Company’s motion challenging the admissibility of plaintiffs’ damages expert, precluding the expert from testifying. The case was consolidated with similar cases against Big Lots and Dollar Tree, and a non-jury trial commenced on May 14, 2012 and presentation of evidence concluded on May 22, 2012. To date, no judgment has been issued. At this time, no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of the action on the merits or otherwise.  If the Company is not successful in defending the Winn-Dixie matter, the outcome could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial statements as a whole.

In 2008, the Company terminated an interest rate swap as a result of the counterparty’s declaration of bankruptcy and made a cash payment of $7.6 million to settle the swap. On May 14, 2010, the Company received a demand from the counterparty for an additional payment of approximately $19 million plus interest. In April 2011, the Company reached a settlement with the counterparty under which the Company paid an additional $9.85 million in exchange for a full release. The Company accrued the settlement amount along with additional expected fees and costs related thereto in the first quarter of 2011. The settlement was finalized and the payment was made in May 2011.

From time to time, the Company is a party to various other legal actions involving claims incidental to the conduct of its business, including actions by employees, consumers, suppliers, government agencies, or others through private actions, class actions, administrative proceedings, regulatory actions or other litigation, including without limitation under federal and state employment laws and wage and hour laws. The Company believes, based upon information currently available, that such other litigation and claims, both individually and in the aggregate, will be resolved without a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial statements as a whole. However, litigation involves an element of uncertainty. Future developments could cause these actions or claims to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows, or financial position. In addition, certain of these lawsuits, if decided adversely to the Company or settled by the Company, may result in liability material to the Company’s financial position or may negatively affect operating results if changes to the Company’s business operation are required.