XML 22 R11.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.20.2
Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Contingencies ContingenciesSecurities Litigation. On May 15, 2020, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and two of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, captioned Uddin v. Conn’s, Inc., et al., No. 4:20-1705 (“Uddin Action”). On November 16, 2020, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. The court entered an order recognizing the dismissal on November 17, 2020.
On April 2, 2018, MicroCapital Fund, LP, MicroCapital Fund, Ltd., and MicroCapital LLC (collectively, “MicroCapital”) filed a lawsuit against us and certain of our former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Cause No. 4:18-CV-01020 (the “MicroCapital Action”). The plaintiffs in this action allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose material facts about our credit and underwriting practices, accounting and internal controls. Plaintiffs allege violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, Texas and Connecticut common law fraud, and Texas common law negligent misrepresentation against all defendants; as well as violations of section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and Connecticut common law negligent misrepresentation against certain defendants arising from plaintiffs’ purchase of Conn’s, Inc. securities between April 3, 2013 and February 20, 2014. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought.
The Court previously stayed the MicroCapital Action pending resolution of other outstanding litigation (In re Conn’s Inc. Sec. Litig., Cause No. 14-CV-00548 (S.D. Tex.) (the “Consolidated Securities Action”)), which was settled in October 2018. After that settlement, the stay was lifted, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in the MicroCapital Action on November 6, 2018. On July 26, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint be granted in part and denied in part. On September 25, 2019, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report, which permitted MicroCapital to file an amended complaint, which MicroCapital filed on October 30, 2019. Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint on November 27, 2019.
We intend to vigorously defend our interests in the MicroCapital Action. It is not possible at this time to predict the timing or outcome of this litigation, and we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss from these claims.
Derivative Litigation. On December 1, 2014, an alleged shareholder, purportedly on behalf of the Company, filed a derivative shareholder lawsuit against us and certain of our current and former directors and former executive officers captioned as Robert Hack, derivatively on behalf of Conn’s, Inc., v. Theodore M. Wright (former executive officer and former director), Bob L. Martin, Jon E.M. Jacoby (former director), Kelly M. Malson, Douglas H. Martin, David Schofman, Scott L. Thompson (former director), Brian Taylor (former executive officer) and Michael J. Poppe (former executive officer) and Conn’s, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-03442 (S.D. Tex.) (the “Original Derivative Action”). The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement, and insider trading based on substantially similar factual allegations as those asserted in the Consolidated Securities Action. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages against these persons and does not request any damages from Conn’s. Setting forth substantially similar claims against the same defendants, on February 25, 2015, an additional federal derivative action, captioned 95250 Canada LTEE, derivatively on Behalf of Conn’s, Inc. v. Wright et al., Cause No. 4:15-cv-00521 (S.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the Original Derivative Action.
The Court previously approved a stipulation among the parties to stay the Original Derivative Action pending resolution of the Consolidated Securities Action. The stay was lifted on November 1, 2018, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed December 3, 2018. On May 29, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report, recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint be granted, but recommended that the plaintiff be permitted to replead his claims. The district court adopted the recommendation on July 5, 2019.
On July 19, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On November 1, 2019, the magistrate judge heard argument on the motion to dismiss and postponed certain deadlines. Adopting the report and recommendation issued by the magistrate judge on July 22, 2020, the district court entered an order on September 25, 2020 denying defendant’s motion on the breach of fiduciary duty claims and granting defendants’ motion on the insider trading claims. The district court also allowed plaintiff leave to amend to add 95250 Canada LTEE, which had been omitted from the amended complaint, as a party to the case. Plaintiffs filed a corrected amended complaint on October 21, 2020 in accordance with the district court’s order.
Another derivative action was filed on January 27, 2015, captioned as Richard A. Dohn v. Wright, et al., Cause No. 2015-04405, in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. This action makes substantially similar allegations to the Original Derivative Action against the same defendants. This case is stayed until at least July 15, 2021.
Prior to filing a lawsuit, an alleged shareholder, Robert J. Casey II (“Casey”), submitted a demand under Delaware law, which our Board of Directors refused. On May 19, 2016, Casey, purportedly on behalf of the Company, filed a lawsuit against us and certain of our current and former directors and former executive officers in the 55th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, captioned as Casey, derivatively on behalf of Conn’s, Inc., v. Theodore M. Wright (former executive officer and former director), Michael J. Poppe (former executive officer), Brian Taylor (former executive officer), Bob L. Martin, Jon E.M. Jacoby (former director), Kelly M. Malson (former director), Douglas H. Martin, David Schofman, Scott L. Thompson (former director) and William E. Saunders Jr., and Conn’s, Inc., Cause No. 2016-33135. The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment based on substantially similar factual allegations as those asserted in the Original Derivative Action. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought. Since April 2018, this case has been abated pending the resolution of related cases. At a hearing on October 2, 2020, the court took under advisement whether the abatement should continue pending further developments in the Original Derivative Action.
Other than Casey, none of the plaintiffs in the other derivative actions made a demand on our Board of Directors prior to filing their respective lawsuits. The defendants in the derivative actions intend to vigorously defend against these claims. It is not possible at this time to predict the timing or outcome of any of this litigation, and we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss from these claims.
We are involved in other routine litigation and claims, incidental to our business from time to time which, individually or in the aggregate, are not expected to have a material adverse effect on us. As required, we accrue estimates of the probable costs for the resolution of these matters. These estimates have been developed in consultation with counsel and are based upon an analysis of potential results, assuming a combination of litigation and settlement strategies. However, the results of these proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and changes in facts and circumstances could impact our estimate of reserves for litigation. The Company believes that any probable and reasonably estimable loss associated with the foregoing has been adequately reflected in the accompanying financial statements.