Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

May 01, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE 12 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

     Advertising Purchase Commitments

     As of May 1, 2011, we had obligations to purchase $12.9 million of advertising through the remainder of 2011.

     Product Purchase Commitments

     As of May 1, 2011, we had various commitments to purchase product from certain vendors that are not material to our total inventory purchases.

     Litigation and Settlements

     Beginning in March 2007, we were named as a party in the following lawsuits arising from pet food recalls announced by several manufacturers. The plaintiffs sued the major pet food manufacturers and retailers claiming that their pets suffered injury and/or death as a result of consuming allegedly contaminated pet food and pet snack products.

Bruski v. Nutro Products, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed 3/23/07)
Rozman v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, MN (filed 4/9/07)
Ford v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, S.D. CA (filed 4/23/07)
Wahl, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., USDC, C.D. CA (filed 4/10/07)
Demith v. Nestle, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed 4/23/07)
Thompkins v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, CO (filed 4/11/07)
McBain v. Menu Foods, et al., Judicial Centre of Regina, Canada (filed 7/11/07)
Dayman v. Hills Pet Nutrition Inc., et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice (filed 8/8/07)
Esau v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (filed 9/5/07)
Ewasew v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of British Columbia (filed 3/23/07)
Silva v. Menu Foods, et al., Canada Province of Manitoba (filed 3/30/07)
Powell v. Menu Foods, et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice (filed 3/28/07)

     By order dated June 28, 2007, the Bruski, Rozman, Ford, Wahl, Demith and Thompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other pet food class actions under the federal rules for multi-district litigation (In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation, Civil No. 07-2867). The Canadian cases were not consolidated.

     On May 21, 2008, the parties to the U.S. lawsuits comprising the In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation and the Canadian cases jointly submitted a comprehensive settlement arrangement for court approval. On October 14, 2008, the U.S. District Court approved the settlement, and the Canadian courts gave final approval on November 3, 2008. No appeals were filed in Canada and although an appeal of the U.S. settlement was filed in 2009, on April 5, 2011, the District Court reconfirmed on remand the settlement in its entirety, thus concluding these cases with no material impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements.

     In January 2011, we were named as a defendant in Pedroza v. PetSmart, Inc., et al., a lawsuit originally filed in California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino. The case has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, purportedly on behalf of current and former exempt store management in California, that we improperly classified our store management as exempt pursuant to the California Labor Code, and as a result failed to: (i) pay or provide to such managers proper wages, overtime compensation, or rest or meal periods, (ii) maintain and provide accurate wage-related statements and records, and (iii) reimburse certain business expenses, in each case as is required by the California Labor Code.

     The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, statutory penalties and other relief, including liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and injunctive relief. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit, or any possible monetary exposure associated with the lawsuit, therefore, we have not accrued any liability. We believe, however, that the lawsuit is without merit and that the case should not be certified as a class or collective action, and we are vigorously defending these claims.

     We are involved in the defense of various other legal proceedings that we do not believe are material to our consolidated financial statements.