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 February 2, 2019, are approximately as follows:



FISCAL YEAR ENDING:
(in thousands)
February 1, 2020	$	186,280
January 30, 2021	169,477
January 29, 2022	146,390
January 28, 2023	114,293
February 3, 2024	75,410
Thereafter	110,812
Total minimum lease payments	$	802,662

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 2018, 2017 and 2016, total rent expense under operating leases was approximately $261.3 million, $263.7 million and $268.5 million, respectively, including common area maintenance charges of approximately $48.0 million, $47.9 million and $47.6 million, respectively, other rental charges of approximately $40.9 million, $40.3 million and $41.2 million, respectively, and contingent rental expense, based on sales, of approximately $3.6 million, $4.3 million and $5.2 million, respectively.

Open Purchase Orders

At February 2, 2019 and February 3, 2018, we had approximately $321.8 million and $316.5 million, respectively, of open purchase orders for inventory, in the normal course of business.

Legal Proceedings

In July 2015, White House Black Market, Inc. (“WHBM”) 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 (“District Court”). The complaint alleges that WHBM, in violation of federal law, willfully published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number on customers’ point-of-sale receipts. The plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each alleged willful violation of the law, as well as attorneys’ fees, costs and punitive damages. WHBM denies the material allegations of the complaint and believes the case is without merit. On February 12, 2018, the District Court issued an order certifying the class.

On April 9, 2018, the District Court, sua sponte, issued an order granting WHBM’s earlier 2016 request to appeal, to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (“Eleventh Circuit”), the District Court’s ruling that the plaintiff has standing to maintain the lawsuit. On April 19, 2018, WHBM filed a petition for review in the Eleventh Circuit. In the meantime, the District Court stayed all further proceedings in the case pending the outcome of the appeal in the Eleventh Circuit.

On July 12, 2018, the plaintiff and WHBM notified the Eleventh Circuit that the plaintiff and WHBM had reached a class settlement on all claims and therefore voluntarily dismissed WHBM’s appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. On August 2, 2018, the District Court reopened the case for purposes of reviewing/approving the proposed settlement. On October 22, 2018, the plaintiff filed the settlement papers with the District Court, along with a motion to stay the District Court’s consideration of the settlement pending the Eleventh Circuit’s final disposition of Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., in which the Eleventh Circuit held, in an opinion issued October 3, 2018, that the display of the first five and last four digits of a credit or debit card number on a customer’s receipt given at the point of sale establishes a “concrete injury” sufficient to confer Article III standing, enabling the customer to maintain a lawsuit. The motion to stay was granted on November 15, 2018. A petition for rehearing was filed in the Muransky case on October 24, 2018 and is currently pending before the Eleventh Circuit. The Muransky opinion, if not altered on the petition for rehearing, would bind the District Court in the Altman case and likely establish that the plaintiff has standing to maintain her lawsuit against WHBM. In such event, the stay will be lifted and the proposed settlement will be reviewed by the District Court. If the Eleventh Circuit does not find standing in the Muransky case, the parties have agreed to submit the proposed settlement to the Superior Court for Cobb County, Georgia for approval. The proposed settlement would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

However, no assurance can be given that the proposed settlement will be approved. If the proposed settlement is rejected and the case were to proceed as a class action and WHBM were to be unsuccessful in its defense on the merits, then the ultimate resolution of the case could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

In May 2016, Chico’s Retail Services, Inc. (“CRS”) was named as a defendant in Corporate Cleaners, Inc. v. Chico’s Retail Services, Inc., an action filed in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida. The plaintiff alleges that CRS breached a contract (and related amendments thereto) with the plaintiff by, among other reasons, failing to pay outstanding invoices and failing to allow the plaintiff the exclusive right to provide certain cleaning services. The plaintiff seeks an award of lost profits, lost revenue, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. CRS denies the material allegations brought by the plaintiff and filed a counterclaim seeking recovery of amounts associated with alleged misrepresentations by the plaintiff as to the quantity of inventory units cleaned by the plaintiff. Discovery, including document productions, depositions, as well as expert discovery, remain ongoing.

On September 4, 2018, CRS and the plaintiff participated in mediation. Although unsuccessful at that time, the mediation remains adjourned with the expectation that the parties will continue mediation after expert disclosures have been exchanged. Discovery and trial deadlines have been extended. As such, discovery, including expert discovery, remains ongoing, with CRS’ expert scheduled to be deposed in April 2019. A trial date is now set for September 17, 2019. No assurance can be given that CRS will be successful in its defense of this case or in its counterclaim. However, management does not believe that any resolution of the case would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

Other than as noted above, we are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings other than claims and lawsuits arising in the normal course of business. All such matters are subject to uncertainties, and outcomes may not be predictable. Consequently, the ultimate aggregate amounts of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to other matters as of February 2, 2019 are not estimable. However, while such matters could affect our consolidated operating results when resolved in future periods, management believes that upon final disposition, any monetary liability or financial impact to us would not be material to our annual consolidated financial statements.