COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:

Leases

We lease retail stores, a limited amount of office space and certain office equipment under operating leases expiring in various years through the fiscal year ending 2028. Certain operating leases provide for renewal options that generally approximate five years at a pre-determined rental value. In the normal course of business, operating leases are typically renewed or replaced by other leases.

Minimum future rental payments under non-cancelable operating leases (including leases with certain minimum sales cancellation clauses described below and exclusive of common area maintenance charges and/or contingent rental payments based on sales) as of January 28, 2017, are approximately as follows:



FISCAL YEAR ENDING:
(in thousands)
February 3, 2018	$	189,134
February 2, 2019	162,035
February 1, 2020	141,170
January 30, 2021	127,559
January 29, 2022	109,191
Thereafter	182,856
Total minimum lease payments	$	911,945

Certain leases provide that we may cancel the lease if our retail sales at that location fall below an established level. A majority of our store operating leases contain cancellation clauses that allow the leases to be terminated at our discretion, if certain minimum sales levels are not met within the first few years of the lease term. We have not historically met or exercised a significant number of these cancellation clauses and, therefore, have included commitments for the full lease terms of such leases in the above table. For fiscal 2016, 2015 and 2014, total rent expense under operating leases was approximately $268.5 million, $266.2 million, and $253.2 million, respectively, including common area maintenance charges of approximately $47.6 million, $46.7 million, and $42.5 million, respectively, other rental charges of approximately $41.2 million, $40.1 million, and $37.6 million, respectively, and contingent rental expense, based on sales, of approximately $5.2 million, $5.8 million, and $7.0 million, respectively.

Open Purchase Orders

At January 28, 2017 and January 30, 2016, we had approximately $356.7 million and $398.6 million, respectively, of open purchase orders for inventory, in the normal course of business.

Legal Proceedings

In July 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number or an expiration date on customers' receipts. The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint. Its motion to dismiss was denied on July 13, 2016, but the Company continues to believe that the case is without merit and is not appropriate for class treatment. It will continue to vigorously defend the matter. At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the proceeding will be permitted to proceed as a class or the size of the putative class, and no assurance can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise. No specific dollar amount in damages or other relief is specified in the Complaint, and the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss. However, if the case were to proceed as a class action and the Company were to be unsuccessful in its defense on the merits, the ultimate resolution of the case could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition.

In June 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Ackerman v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative representative Private Attorney General action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The Complaint alleges numerous violations of California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses, among other things. Plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint to make the same allegations on a class action basis. In June 2016, the parties submitted a proposed settlement of the matter to the court, and the court granted preliminary approval on August 26, 2016, and settlement notices have been distributed. If finally approved, the proposed settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

In March 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Cunningham v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. The Complaint alleged many of the same Labor Code violations as Ackerman, described above. Given the overlap with the Ackerman case, the Court stayed the matter pending final approval of the Ackerman proposed settlement. In October 2016, the parties agreed to lift the stay and to resolve the matter as an individual action. The Court has since dismissed the case. The settlement amount was immaterial.

In June 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Rodems v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno. The Complaint alleged many of the same Labor Code violations as Ackerman, described above. Given the overlap with the Ackerman case, the court stayed the matter pending final approval of the Ackerman proposed settlement. The Company and the plaintiff subsequently agreed to a lifting of the stay and a filing of an amended complaint in early November. The Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 9, 2016. In the First Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs make similar claims, but only on behalf of three individuals, and they do not seek class status. The Company disputes the allegations of the First Amended Complaint and, as the matter is no longer a putative class action, is confident that this case will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operation.

On July 28, 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Calleros v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara. Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to comply with California law requiring it to provide consumers cash for gift cards with a stored value of less than $10.00. Following voluntary mediation of the matter in November of 2016, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which is subject to court review and approval. If finally approved, the settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operation.

Other than as noted above, we are not currently a party to any legal proceedings, other than various claims and lawsuits arising in the normal course of business, none of which we believe should have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.