Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Aug. 03, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

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 on the October 2018 opinion was filed in the Muransky case on October 24, 2018. The Eleventh Circuit issued a new opinion on April 22, 2019, sua sponte, superseding the October 2018 opinion, and reaffirming the establishment of Article III standing in the Muransky case.  A petition for rehearing on that April 2019 opinion was filed on May 13, 2019 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 (“Seventeenth Judicial Circuit”). 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.

Mediation commenced in 2018, but was adjourned with the expectation that the parties would continue mediation after expert disclosures have been exchanged. CRS' expert was deposed in April 2019. A trial date was set for September 17, 2019; however, on August 15, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement for an amount that was not material to our annual consolidated financial statements. The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit will dismiss the case upon the Company's payment of the settlement.

In May 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in Fisher v. Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges that the Company advertised fictitious prices and corresponding phantom discounts on its made-for-outlet products in its Chico's outlets in violation of California's Unfair Competition Laws, California's False Advertising Laws and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff seeks disgorgement of the Company's profits and alleged unjust enrichment resulting from such advertising practices, injunctive relief, a corrective advertising campaign, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The Company was served on May 10, 2019. The parties have scheduled a mediation date of October 22, 2019. Additionally, the parties have jointly asked the court to extend Company’s response deadline to November 22, 2019.

The Company is currently investigating the underlying allegations and will vigorously defend the case. At this time, it is not possible to predict whether this matter ultimately will be permitted to proceed as a class action, and no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter. However, if the matter were to proceed as a class action and the Company 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.

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 these matters as of August 3, 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.