Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

The Company leases retail stores, its corporate office, warehouse facilities, vehicles, computers, and office equipment under operating lease agreements expiring at various times through 2024. Certain leases for the Company’s retail stores include fixed common area maintenance obligations.

Minimum annual rental and other commitments under noncancelable leases as of February 2, 2013, are as follows (in thousands):



Fiscal year:
2013	$	79,900
2014	75,200
2015	70,100
2016	69,700
2017	64,100
Thereafter	138,700
	$	497,700

Aggregate rents under noncancelable operating leases for fiscal 2012, 2011, and 2010 were as follows (in thousands):



	Fiscal 2012			Fiscal 2011			Fiscal 2010
Minimum rent	$	67,000		$	65,200		$	60,500
Percentage rent	100			400			200
Deferred rent, net	(3,500		)	(2,500		)	(2,600		)
Common area maintenance and real estate taxes	44,800			42,900			40,200
Excise tax	800			800			800
Aggregate rent expense	$	109,200		$	106,800		$	99,100

Indemnities, Commitments, and Guarantees

The restricted shares and options awarded under the Company’s stock incentive plans permit accelerated vesting in connection with change-of-control events. In addition, certain of the Company's executive officers' employment agreement require accelerated vesting in connection with change-of-control events. A change of control is generally defined as the acquisition of over 50% of the combined voting power of the Company’s outstanding shares eligible to vote for the election of its Board of Directors by any person, or the merger or consolidation of the Company in which voting control is not retained by the holders of the Company’s securities prior to the transaction or the majority of directors of the surviving company are not directors of the Company. In addition, the members of the Board of Directors who have received restricted stock awards also have accelerated vesting provisions in connection with the occurrence of certain events, including, but not limited to, failure to be nominated or reelected to the Board of Directors and/or the significant diminution in the directors’ and officers’ insurance provided by the Company. In fiscal 2012, 2011, and 2010, no change of control or other events occurred that would give rise to such accelerated vesting. Additionally, the Company has made contractual commitments to certain of its executive officers providing for severance payments upon certain termination of events.

During its normal course of business, the Company has made certain indemnifications, commitments, and guarantees under which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. These indemnities include those given to various lessors in connection with facility leases for certain claims arising from such facility or lease and indemnities to directors and officers of the Company to the maximum extent permitted under the laws of the State of Delaware. The Company has issued guarantees in the form of letters of credit as security for merchandise shipments, payment of claims under the Company’s self-funded workers’ compensation insurance program, and certain other operating commitments. There were $5.2 million in letters of credit outstanding at February 2, 2013. The duration of these indemnities, commitments, and guarantees varies. Some of these indemnities, commitments, and guarantees do not provide for any limitation of the maximum potential future payments the Company could be obligated to make. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made related to these indemnifications have been immaterial. At February 2, 2013, the Company has determined that no accrued liability is necessary related to these commitments, guarantees, and indemnities.

Litigation

On July 19, 2006, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees that were employed and paid by the Company on an hourly basis during the four-year period from July 19, 2002, through July 19, 2006. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleged various violations under the State of California Labor Code, the State of California Business and Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. On November 30, 2006, the Company reached an agreement to pay approximately $0.3 million to settle this matter. In September 2012, the Company paid approximately $0.3 million to settle the matter plus $0.1 million in settlement administration fees.

On May 22, 2007, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees who were employed and paid by the Company from May 22, 2003 through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleged various violations under the State of California Labor Code, the State of California Business and Professions Code, and Wage Orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission. On December 17, 2010, the court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Motion For Leave to File An Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs appealed both orders. On April 4, 2012, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of class certification and leave to amend the complaint. On September 11, 2012, the matter was transferred to a new judge in the lower court. In March 2013, the Company paid $0.2 million to settle the matter.

On September 29, 2008, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees who were employed and paid by the Company from September 29, 2004 through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleges various violations under the State of California Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs are seeking reimbursement for alleged uniform and business expenses, injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties, interest, and attorney's fees and costs. On August 16, 2011, the court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiffs appealed and, on October 12, 2012, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling. On January 23, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs' petition for review. On February 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals issued a remittitur to send the case back to the trial court where it will proceed on behalf of only the three named plaintiffs and not as a class action.

On April 24, 2009, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) requested information and records relevant to several charges of discrimination by the Company against employees of the Company. In the course of this investigation, the EEOC served a subpoena seeking information related to current and former employees throughout the United States. On November 14, 2012, the Company reached resolution with the EEOC and several of the individual complainants that concludes the EEOC's investigation. Between November 2012 and March 2013, the Company paid approximately $0.8 million to settle with individual complainants. The Company also agreed to programmatic initiatives that are consistent with the Company's diversity plan. The Company will report progress on its initiatives and results periodically to the EEOC. Claimants with whom the Company did not enter into a settlement had an opportunity to bring a private lawsuit within ninety days from the date they received their November 26, 2012 right-to-sue notice from the EEOC, however, that time period is tolled for those individuals who are putative class members in a race discrimination class action filed on July 12, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California with respect to any race discrimination claims they have that are within the scope of the putative class action (see below). On December 12, 2012, the EEOC issued a "for cause" finding related to certain allegations made by one complainant, who is the lead plaintiff in the above-referenced class action.

On May 9, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees who were employed and paid by the Company from May 9, 2007 through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleges various violations under the State of California Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory penalties, civil penalties, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On February 3, 2012, the court granted the Company's motion to transfer venue to the County of Orange. On July 13, 2012, the Court granted the Company's motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs appealed. On July 18, 2012, the Company received notice that Plaintiffs filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Board Act based on the arbitration agreements Plaintiffs signed upon their hiring with the Company. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company's arbitration agreements unlawfully compel employees to waive their rights to participate in class or representative actions against the Company. On September 20, 2012, the NLRB dismissed Plaintiffs claims.

On October 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees who were employed in California during the time period from October 27, 2007 through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. Plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint alleges various violations under the State of California Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions Code. On March 28, 2012, the court entered an Order denying the Company's motion to compel arbitration. On September 21, 2012, the Company filed a notice of appeal.

On July 12, 2012, a complaint was filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former African American retail store employees. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleges various violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, including allegations that the Company engaged in disparate treatment discrimination of those African American current and former employees in promotion to management positions and against African American store management employees with respect to compensation and termination from 2008 through the present. Plaintiffs are also alleging retaliation. Plaintiffs are seeking reinstatement or instatement of Plaintiffs and class members to their alleged rightful employment positions, lost pay and benefits allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs and class members, compensatory damages for emotional distress, front pay, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and interest.

As of February 2, 2013, the Company has accrued $6.4 million for loss contingencies in connection with the litigation matters enumerated above included in accounts payable - other on the consolidated balance sheet. The Company is vigorously defending the pending matters and will continue to evaluate its potential exposure and estimated costs as these matters progress. Future developments may require the Company to increase the amount of this accrual, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or financial condition.

From time to time, the Company is involved in other litigation matters relating to claims arising out of its operations in the normal course of business. The Company believes that, in the event of a settlement or an adverse judgment on certain of these claims, insurance may cover a portion of such losses. However, certain matters could arise for which the Company does not have insurance coverage or for which insurance provides only partial coverage. These matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or financial condition.