Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Feb. 01, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies.
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 18—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments The Company had no material off balance sheet commitments as of February 1, 2020. Contingencies The Company is involved in lawsuits, claims and proceedings incident to the ordinary course of its business. These disputes are increasing in number as the business expands and the Company grows larger. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. As a result, the outcome of matters in which the Company is involved could result in unexpected expenses and liability that could adversely affect the Company’s operations. In addition, any claims against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of management time and result in the diversion of significant operational resources. The Company reviews the need for any loss contingency reserves and establishes reserves when, in the opinion of management, it is probable that a matter would result in liability, and the amount of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated. Generally, in view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of those matters, particularly in cases in which claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages, it is not possible to determine whether a liability has been incurred or to reasonably estimate the ultimate or minimum amount of that liability until the case is close to resolution, in which case no reserve is established until that time. When and to the extent that the Company does establish a reserve, there can be no assurance that any such recorded liability for estimated losses will be for the appropriate amount, and actual losses could be higher or lower than what the Company accrues from time to time. The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of its current matters will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements. Securities Class Action On February 2, 2017, City of Miami General Employees’ & Sanitation Employees’ Retirement Trust filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against the Company, Gary Friedman, and Karen Boone. On March 16, 2017, Peter J. Errichiello, Jr. filed a similar class action complaint in the same forum and against the same parties. On April 26, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions. The consolidated action is captioned In re RH, Inc. Securities Litigation. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in June 2017 asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). The complaint asserts claims purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Company common stock from March 26, 2015 to June 8, 2016. The alleged misstatements relate to statements regarding the roll out of the RH Modern product line and the Company’s inventory levels. The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages, and other appropriate relief, including an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. On March 21, 2019, the Company and the individual defendants in the case entered into a binding memorandum of understanding to settle the case. The settlement amount is $50 million, which was funded entirely by the Company’s insurance carriers. On May 6, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement together with a settlement agreement executed by both parties. The settlement agreement was subject to customary conditions including court approval following notice to the Company’s shareholders, and a hearing at which time the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. On June 21, 2019, the court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. The court granted final approval of the settlement on October 25, 2019. As a result of signing the settlement agreement in fiscal 2018, the Company recorded a provision for legal settlement and unpaid legal fees for $50 million within other current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets as of February 2, 2019. Additionally, the Company recorded a litigation insurance recovery receivable of $50 million as of February 2, 2019 within prepaid expense and other current assets on the consolidated balance sheets, which represented the estimated insurance claims proceeds from the Company’s insurance carriers. As a result of the court approval and adjudication of the claims in fiscal 2019, as well as the Company’s insurance carriers funding the settlement amount, the Company has derecognized the provision for legal settlement and unpaid legal fees within other current liabilities and the associated litigation insurance recovery receivable on the consolidated balance sheets as of February 1, 2020, which settlement resolved all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the action. Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit On April 24, 2018, purported Company shareholder David Magnani filed a purported shareholder derivative suit in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, captioned Magnani v. Friedman et al. (No. 18-cv-02452). On June 29, 2018, Hosrof Izmirliyan filed a similar purported shareholder derivative complaint in the same forum, captioned Izmirliyan v. Friedman et al. (No. 18-cv-03930). On July 29, 2018, the court consolidated both derivative actions, and the consolidated action is captioned In re RH Shareholder Derivative Litigation. On August 24, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that names RH as a nominal defendant and Gary Friedman, Karen Boone, Carlos Alberini, Keith Belling, Eri Chaya, Mark Demilio, Katie Mitic, Ali Rowghani and Leonard Schlesinger as defendants. The allegations substantially track those in the securities class action described above. Plaintiffs bring claims against all individual defendants under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The plaintiffs also allege insider trading and misappropriation of information claims against two of the individual defendants. The amended complaint seeks monetary damages, corporate governance changes, restitution, and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. The Company believes that plaintiffs lack standing to bring this derivative action. On September 28, 2018, the Company filed a motion to stay proceedings and a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On January 23, 2019, the court granted the motion to stay the case pending resolution of the securities class action discussed above. On March 19, 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation, which agreement is subject to the finalization of a stipulation of settlement, and certain conditions, including approval by the Company’s board of directors, and approval by the Court. The settlement involves certain non-monetary terms as well as payment of the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ legal fees, which payment is expected to be funded by the Company’s insurance carriers.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Feb. 01, 2020

NOTE 18—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

The Company had no material off balance sheet commitments as of February 1, 2020.

Contingencies

The Company is involved in lawsuits, claims and proceedings incident to the ordinary course of its business. These disputes are increasing in number as the business expands and the Company grows larger. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. As a result, the outcome of matters in which the Company is involved could result in unexpected

expenses and liability that could adversely affect the Company’s operations. In addition, any claims against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of management time and result in the diversion of significant operational resources.

The Company reviews the need for any loss contingency reserves and establishes reserves when, in the opinion of management, it is probable that a matter would result in liability, and the amount of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated. Generally, in view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of those matters, particularly in cases in which claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages, it is not possible to determine whether a liability has been incurred or to reasonably estimate the ultimate or minimum amount of that liability until the case is close to resolution, in which case no reserve is established until that time. When and to the extent that the Company does establish a reserve, there can be no assurance that any such recorded liability for estimated losses will be for the appropriate amount, and actual losses could be higher or lower than what the Company accrues from time to time. The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of its current matters will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements.

Securities Class Action

On February 2, 2017, City of Miami General Employees’ & Sanitation Employees’ Retirement Trust filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against the Company, Gary Friedman, and Karen Boone. On March 16, 2017, Peter J. Errichiello, Jr. filed a similar class action complaint in the same forum and against the same parties. On April 26, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions. The consolidated action is captioned In re RH, Inc. Securities Litigation. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in June 2017 asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). The complaint asserts claims purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Company common stock from March 26, 2015 to June 8, 2016. The alleged misstatements relate to statements regarding the roll out of the RH Modern product line and the Company’s inventory levels. The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages, and other appropriate relief, including an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. On March 21, 2019, the Company and the individual defendants in the case entered into a binding memorandum of understanding to settle the case. The settlement amount is $50 million, which was funded entirely by the Company’s insurance carriers. On May 6, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement together with a settlement agreement executed by both parties. The settlement agreement was subject to customary conditions including court approval following notice to the Company’s shareholders, and a hearing at which time the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. On June 21, 2019, the court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. The court granted final approval of the settlement on October 25, 2019.

As a result of signing the settlement agreement in fiscal 2018, the Company recorded a provision for legal settlement and unpaid legal fees for $50 million within other current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets as of February 2, 2019. Additionally, the Company recorded a litigation insurance recovery receivable of $50 million as of February 2, 2019 within prepaid expense and other current assets on the consolidated balance sheets, which represented the estimated insurance claims proceeds from the Company’s insurance carriers.

As a result of the court approval and adjudication of the claims in fiscal 2019, as well as the Company’s insurance carriers funding the settlement amount, the Company has derecognized the provision for legal settlement and unpaid legal fees within other current liabilities and the associated litigation insurance recovery receivable on the consolidated balance sheets as of February 1, 2020, which settlement resolved all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the action.

Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

On April 24, 2018, purported Company shareholder David Magnani filed a purported shareholder derivative suit in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, captioned Magnani v. Friedman et al. (No. 18-cv-02452). On June 29, 2018, Hosrof Izmirliyan filed a similar purported shareholder derivative complaint in the same forum, captioned Izmirliyan v. Friedman et al. (No. 18-cv-03930). On July 29, 2018, the court consolidated both derivative actions, and the consolidated action is captioned In re RH Shareholder Derivative Litigation. On August 24, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that names RH as a nominal defendant and Gary Friedman, Karen Boone, Carlos Alberini, Keith Belling, Eri Chaya, Mark Demilio, Katie Mitic, Ali Rowghani and Leonard Schlesinger as

defendants. The allegations substantially track those in the securities class action described above. Plaintiffs bring claims against all individual defendants under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The plaintiffs also allege insider trading and misappropriation of information claims against two of the individual defendants. The amended complaint seeks monetary damages, corporate governance changes, restitution, and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. The Company believes that plaintiffs lack standing to bring this derivative action. On September 28, 2018, the Company filed a motion to stay proceedings and a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On January 23, 2019, the court granted the motion to stay the case pending resolution of the securities class action discussed above. On March 19, 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation, which agreement is subject to the finalization of a stipulation of settlement, and certain conditions, including approval by the Company’s board of directors, and approval by the Court. The settlement involves certain non-monetary terms as well as payment of the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ legal fees, which payment is expected to be funded by the Company’s insurance carriers.