
9.	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Arbitration Award. On December 21, 2013, an award (the "Arbitration Award") was issued in favor of The Swatch Group Ltd. ("Swatch") and its wholly-owned subsidiary Tiffany Watch Co. ("Watch Company"; Swatch and Watch Company, together, the "Swatch Parties") in an arbitration proceeding (the "Arbitration") between the Registrant and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Tiffany and Company and Tiffany (NJ) Inc. (the Registrant and such subsidiaries, together, the "Tiffany Parties") and the Swatch Parties.

The Arbitration was initiated in June 2011 by the Swatch Parties, who sought damages for alleged breach of agreements entered into by and among the Swatch Parties and the Tiffany Parties in December 2007 (the "Agreements"), and the hearing was held in October 2012 before a three-member arbitral panel convened in the Netherlands pursuant to the Arbitration Rules of the Netherlands Arbitration Institute. The Agreements pertained to the development and commercialization of a watch business and, among other things, contained various licensing and governance provisions and approval requirements relating to business, marketing and branding plans and provisions allocating profits relating to sales of the watch business between the Swatch Parties and the Tiffany Parties.

In general terms, the Swatch Parties alleged that the Tiffany Parties breached the Agreements by obstructing and delaying development of Watch Company’s business and otherwise failing to proceed in good faith. The Swatch Parties sought damages based on alternate theories ranging from CHF 73,000,000 (or approximately $80,000,000 at July 31, 2014) (based on its alleged wasted investment) to CHF 3,800,000,000 (or approximately $4,200,000,000 at July 31, 2014) (calculated based on alleged future lost profits of the Swatch Parties and their affiliates over the entire term of the Agreements).

In the Arbitration, the Tiffany Parties defended against the Swatch Parties’ claims vigorously, disputing both the merits of the claims and the calculation of the alleged damages. The Tiffany Parties also asserted counterclaims for damages attributable to breach by the Swatch Parties, stemming from the Swatch Parties’ September 12, 2011 public issuance of a Notice of Termination purporting to terminate the Agreements due to alleged material breach by the Tiffany Parties, and for termination due to such breach. In general terms, the Tiffany Parties alleged that the Swatch Parties did not have grounds for termination, failed to meet the high standard for proving material breach set forth in the Agreements and failed to provide appropriate management, distribution, marketing and other resources for TIFFANY & CO. brand watches and to honor their contractual obligations to the Tiffany Parties regarding brand management. The Tiffany Parties’ counterclaims sought damages based on alternate theories ranging from CHF 120,000,000 (or approximately $132,000,000 at July 31, 2014) (based on its wasted investment) to approximately CHF 540,000,000 (or approximately $594,000,000 at July 31, 2014) (calculated based on alleged future lost profits of the Tiffany Parties).

Under the terms of the Arbitration Award, and at the request of the Swatch Parties and the Tiffany Parties, the Agreements were deemed terminated as of March 1, 2013. Pursuant to the Arbitration Award, the Tiffany Parties were ordered to pay the Swatch Parties damages of CHF 402,737,000 (the "Arbitration Damages"), as well as interest from June 30, 2012 to the date of payment, two-thirds of the cost of the Arbitration and two-thirds of the Swatch Parties' legal fees, expenses and costs. These amounts were paid in full in January 2014, and, in the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company recorded a charge of $480,211,000 which was classified as Arbitration award expense in the consolidated statement of earnings for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2014.

On March 31, 2014, the Tiffany Parties took action in the courts of the Netherlands to annul the Arbitration Award. Generally, arbitration awards are final; however, Dutch law does provide for limited grounds on which arbitral awards may be set aside. The Tiffany Parties have petitioned to annul the Arbitration Award on these statutory grounds. These grounds include, for example, that the arbitral tribunal violated its mandate by changing the express terms of the Agreements.

Management expects that the annulment action will not be ultimately resolved for at least two years; however, if the Arbitration Award is finally annulled, management anticipates that the claims and counterclaims that formed the basis of the Arbitration, and potentially additional claims and counterclaims, will be litigated in court proceedings between and among the Swatch Parties and the Tiffany Parties. The identity and location of the courts that would hear such actions cannot be determined at this time.

In any such litigation, issues of liability and damages will be pled and determined without regard to the findings of the arbitral panel. As such, it is possible that the court could find that the Swatch Parties were in material breach of their obligations under the Agreements, that the Tiffany Parties were in material breach of their obligations under the Agreements or that neither the Swatch Parties nor the Tiffany Parties were in material breach. If the Swatch Parties’ claims of liability were accepted by the court, the damages award cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, but could exceed the Arbitration Damages and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements or liquidity.

Management has not established any accrual in the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements as of July 31, 2014 related to the annulment process or any potential subsequent litigation because it does not believe that an annulment of the Arbitration Award and the subsequent award of damages exceeding the Arbitration Damages is probable.

The Company is proceeding with plans to design, produce, market and distribute TIFFANY & CO. brand watches through a Swiss subsidiary. The effective development and growth of this watch business will require additional resources and will involve risks and uncertainties.

Other Litigation Matters. The Company is from time to time involved in routine litigation incidental to the conduct of its business, including proceedings to protect its trademark rights, litigation with parties claiming infringement of patents and other intellectual property rights by the Company, litigation instituted by persons alleged to have been injured upon premises under the Company's control and litigation with present and former employees and customers. Although litigation with present and former employees is routine and incidental to the conduct of the Company's business, as well as for any business employing significant numbers of employees, such litigation can result in large monetary awards when a civil jury is allowed to determine compensatory and/or punitive damages for actions claiming discrimination on the basis of age, gender, race, religion, disability or other legally-protected characteristic or for termination of employment that is wrongful or in violation of implied contracts. However, the Company believes that litigation currently pending to which it is a party or to which its properties are subject will be resolved without any material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, earnings or cash flows.

Environmental Matter. In 2005, the US Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) designated a 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River (the “River”) part of the Diamond Alkali “Superfund” site. This designation resulted from the detection of hazardous substances at the site, which was previously home to the Diamond Shamrock Corporation, a manufacturer of pesticides and herbicides. Under the Superfund law, the EPA will negotiate with potentially responsible parties to agree on remediation approaches.

The Company, which operated a silverware manufacturing facility on a tributary of the River from approximately 1897 to 1985, is one of more than 300 parties (the "Potentially Responsible Parties") designated by the EPA as potentially responsible parties with respect to the River. Of these parties, the Company, along with approximately 70 other Potentially Responsible Parties (collectively, the “Cooperating Parties Group” or “CPG”) voluntarily entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) with the EPA in May 2007 to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (the “RI/FS”) of the lower 17 miles of the River. In June 2012, the CPG voluntarily entered into a second AOC related to focused remediation actions at Mile 10.9 of the River. The RI/FS under the 2007 AOC and the actions under the Mile 10.9 AOC are expected to be substantially complete by the end of 2014. The Company has accrued for its financial obligations under both AOCs, which have not been material to its financial position or results of operations in previous financial periods or on a cumulative basis.

Separately, the EPA has issued and is reviewing comments on its proposed plan for remediating the lower eight miles of the River, which is supported by a Focused Feasibility Study (the “FFS”). The FFS provides multiple approaches to remediation, which range in cost from $360,000,000 to $3,250,000,000, with the cost of the EPA-recommended approach ranging from $950,000,000 to $1,731,000,000. It cannot be determined how any costs of remediation identified as a result of the FFS would be allocated among any of the potentially responsible parties.

The Company expects that the RI/FS, once complete, will be reviewed and subject to comment by the EPA and other governmental agencies and stakeholders, with the EPA ultimately issuing a Record of Decision identifying a proposed remediation approach. With respect to the FFS, the Company expects that the EPA will, after review of the comments, identify and negotiate with any or all of the potentially responsible parties regarding any remediation action that may be necessary, and ultimately issue a Record of Decision with a proposed remediation approach.

Until one or more Records of Decision are issued, neither the ultimate remedial approaches and their costs, nor the Company’s participation, if any, relative to the other potentially responsible parties in these approaches and costs, can be determined. As such, the Company’s obligations, if any, beyond those already recorded for the 2007 AOC and the Mile 10.9 AOC cannot be estimated at this time, and the Company has therefore not recorded any additional liability related to this matter. In light of the number of companies in the CPG participating in the 2007 AOC and the Mile 10.9 AOC and the Company’s relative participation in the costs related thereto, the Company does not expect that its ultimate liability, if any, related to these matters will be material to its financial position. However, it is possible that, when the uncertainties discussed above are resolved, such liability could be material to its results of operations or cash flows in the period in which such uncertainties are resolved.

Leases. In April 2010, Tiffany committed to a plan to consolidate and relocate its New York headquarters staff to a single leased location in Manhattan. The Company recorded accrued exit charges of $30,884,000 during the second quarter of 2011 within other long-term liabilities associated with the relocation. The following is a reconciliation of the remaining accrued exit charges:



(in thousands)
Balance at January 31, 2014	$	10,465
Cash payments, net of estimated sublease income	(1,518		)
Interest accretion	69
Balance at April 30, 2014	9,016
Cash payments, net of estimated sublease income	(1,469		)
Interest accretion	59
Balance at July 31, 2014	$	7,606