Commitments and Contingencies (Notes)	3 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Diamond Sourcing Activities. The Company has agreements with various diamond producers to purchase defined portions of their mines' output at prevailing fair market prices. In addition, the Company also regularly purchases rough and polished diamonds from other suppliers, although it has no contractual obligations to do so. In consideration of its diamond supply agreements, the Company has provided financing to certain suppliers of its rough diamonds. In March 2011, Laurelton Diamonds, Inc. ("Laurelton"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as lender, entered into a $50.0 million amortizing term loan facility agreement (the "Loan") with Koidu Limited (previously Koidu Holdings S.A.) ("Koidu"), as borrower, and BSG Resources Limited, as a limited guarantor. Koidu operates a kimberlite diamond mine in Sierra Leone (the "Mine") from which Laurelton acquires diamonds. Koidu was required under the terms of the Loan to apply the proceeds of the Loan to capital expenditures necessary to increase the output of the Mine, among other purposes. As of July 31, 2011, the Loan was fully funded. In consideration of the Loan, Laurelton entered into a supply agreement, pursuant to which Laurelton is required to purchase at fair market value certain diamonds recovered from the Mine that meet Laurelton's quality standards. The assets of Koidu, including all equipment and rights in respect of the Mine, are subject to the security interest of a lender that is not affiliated with the Company. The Loan is partially secured by the diamonds, if any, that have been extracted from the Mine and that have not been sold to third parties. The Company has evaluated the variable interest entity consolidation requirements with respect to this transaction and has determined that it is not the primary beneficiary, as it does not have the power to direct any of the activities that most significantly impact Koidu's economic performance. On March 29, 2013, the Company entered into an amendment relating to the Loan which deferred principal and interest payments due in 2013 to subsequent years, and, on March 31, 2014, the Company entered into a further amendment providing that the principal payments due in 2014 be paid on a monthly basis rather than on a semi-annual basis. On April 30, 2015, the Company entered into a further amendment (the "2015 Amendment"). Pursuant to the 2015 Amendment, once certain customary conditions relating to the addition of one of Koidu's affiliates as an obligor under the Loan were satisfied, the principal payment due on March 30, 2015 would be deferred until a date to be specified by the Company (which date may be upon at least 30 days' written notice to Koidu, or upon the occurrence of certain specified acceleration conditions). As of June 2015, all of the conditions had been satisfied and the deferral of the principal payment due on March 30, 2015 had become effective, subject to the acceleration conditions set forth in the 2015 Amendment, which include Koidu remaining current on its other payment obligations to the Company. The Loan, as amended, is required to be repaid in full by March 2017 through semi-annual payments. Under the 2015 Amendment, the interest rate on the Loan was increased and, as of April 1, 2015, interest will accrue at a rate per annum that is the greater of (i) LIBOR plus 3.5% or (ii) 6.75%. Koidu also agreed to pay, and subsequently paid, an additional 2% per annum of interest on all deferred principal repayments. As of January 31, 2016, Koidu had not made any of its interest payments due in July 2015 and thereafter, nor its principal payment due in September 2015. The missed payments constitute events of default under the Loan. In February 2016, the Company received the results from two separate and independent reviews of Koidu's operational plans, forecasts, and cash flow projections for the mine, which were commissioned by the Company and by Koidu's largest creditor, respectively. Based on these factors, ongoing discussions with Koidu, and consideration of the possible actions that all parties, including the Government of Sierra Leone and Koidu's largest creditor, might take under the circumstances, management determined that it is probable that it will be unable to collect a portion of the amounts due under the contractual terms of the Loan, and recorded impairment charges, and a related valuation allowance, of $37.9 million in the year ended January 31, 2016. Additionally, the Company ceased accruing interest income on the outstanding Loan balance as of July 31, 2015. At April 30, 2016, there was $43.8 million of principal outstanding under this Loan (see "Note 3. Receivables and Financing Arrangements"). During the three months ended April 30, 2016, Koidu did not make any payments due to the Company under the Loan. Koidu also has yet to provide a proposed revised payment schedule to the Company. The carrying amount of the Company’s loan receivable from Koidu, net of the valuation allowance, was $5.9 million at April 30, 2016 and January 31, 2016. The Company intends to continue to participate in discussions with Koidu regarding operational plans, forecasts and cash flow projections for the mine, as well as revisions to the payment schedule for the Loan. The Company also intends to continue to participate in discussions with certain of Koidu's stakeholders, including its largest creditor and the Government of Sierra Leone. The outcome of these discussions, as well as any other developments, will inform management's ongoing evaluation of the collectability of the Loan and the accrual of interest income. It is possible that such ongoing evaluation may result in additional changes to management's assessment of collectability. While such changes in management's assessment would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or cash flows, it is possible that such a change in assessment could affect the Company's earnings in the period in which such a change were to occur. Arbitration Award. On December 21, 2013, an award was issued (the "Arbitration Award") 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"). 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 73.0 million (or approximately $76.0 million at April 30, 2016) (based on its alleged wasted investment) to CHF 3.8 billion (or approximately $3.9 billion at April 30, 2016) (calculated based on alleged future lost profits of the Swatch Parties and their affiliates over the entire term of the Agreements). The Registrant believes that the claims of the Swatch Parties are without merit. 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 120.0 million (or approximately $124.0 million at April 30, 2016) (based on its wasted investment) to approximately CHF 540.0 million (or approximately $559.0 million at April 30, 2016) (calculated based on alleged future lost profits of the Tiffany Parties). The Arbitration 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 "Rules"), and the Arbitration record was completed in February 2013. Under the terms of the Arbitration Award, and at the request of the Swatch Parties and the Tiffany Parties, the Agreements were deemed terminated. The Arbitration Award stated that the effective date of termination was March 1, 2013. Pursuant to the Arbitration Award, the Tiffany Parties were ordered to pay the Swatch Parties damages of CHF 402.7 million (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. Prior to the ruling of the arbitral panel, no accrual was established in the Company's consolidated financial statements because management did not believe the likelihood of an award of damages to the Swatch Parties was probable. As a result of the ruling, in the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company recorded a charge of $480.2 million, which included the damages, interest, and other costs associated with the ruling and which was classified as Arbitration award expense in the consolidated statement of earnings. On March 31, 2014, the Tiffany Parties took action in the District Court of Amsterdam 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 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. A three-judge panel presided over the annulment hearing on January 19, 2015, and, on March 4, 2015, issued a decision in favor of the Tiffany Parties. Under this decision, the Arbitration Award is set aside. However, the Swatch Parties have taken action in the Dutch courts to appeal the District Court's decision, and the Arbitration Award may ultimately be upheld by the courts of the Netherlands. Registrant’s management expects that the annulment action will not be ultimately resolved until, at the earliest, Registrant's fiscal year ending January 31, 2017. 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 have not been determined at this time. Management also anticipates that the Tiffany Parties would seek the return of the amounts paid by them under the Arbitration Award in court proceedings. In any litigation regarding the claims and counterclaims that formed the basis of the arbitration, 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 Registrant’s consolidated financial statements or liquidity. Although the District Court has issued a decision in favor of the Tiffany Parties, an amount will only be recorded for any return of amounts paid under the Arbitration Award when the District’s Court decision is final (i.e., after all rights of appeal have been exhausted) and return of these amounts is deemed probable and collection is reasonably assured. As such, the Company has not recorded any amounts in its consolidated financial statements related to the District Court’s decision. Additionally, management has not established any accrual in the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements for the quarter ended April 30, 2016 related to the annulment process or any potential subsequent litigation because it does not believe that the final annulment of the Arbitration Award and a subsequent award of damages exceeding the Arbitration Damages is probable. Royalties payable to the Tiffany Parties by Watch Company under the Agreements were not significant in any year. In 2015, management introduced new TIFFANY & CO. brand watches, which have been designed, produced, marketed and distributed through certain of the Company's Swiss subsidiaries. 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 all such 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 emanating from 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 near a tributary of the River from approximately 1897 to 1985, is one of more than 300 parties (the "Potentially Responsible Parties") designated in litigation as potentially responsible parties with respect to the River. The EPA issued general notice letters to 125 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, most of the CPG voluntarily entered into a second AOC related to focused remediation actions at Mile 10.9 of the River. The actions under the Mile 10.9 AOC are complete (except for continued monitoring), the Remedial Investigation ("RI") portion of the RI/FS was submitted to the EPA on February 19, 2015, and the Feasibility Study ("FS") portion of the RI/FS was submitted to the EPA on April 30, 2015. 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. The FS presented and evaluated three options for remediating the lower 17 miles of the River, including the approach recommended by the EPA in its Focused Feasibility Study discussed below, as well as a fourth option of taking no action, and recommended an approach for a targeted remediation of the entire 17-mile stretch of the River. The estimated cost of the approach recommended by the CPG in the FS is approximately $483.0 million. The RI and FS are being reviewed by the EPA and other governmental agencies and stakeholders. Ultimately, the Company expects that the EPA will identify and negotiate with any or all of the potentially responsible parties regarding any remediation action that may be necessary, and issue a Record of Decision with a proposed approach to remediating the entire lower 17-mile stretch of the River. Separately, on April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a proposed plan for remediating the lower eight miles of the River, which is supported by a Focused Feasibility Study (the "FFS"). The FFS evaluated three remediation options, as well as a fourth option of taking no action. Following a public review and comment period and the EPA's review of comments received, the EPA issued a Record of Decision on March 4, 2016 that set forth a remediation plan for the lower eight miles of the River (the "RoD Remediation"). The RoD Remediation is estimated by the EPA to cost $1.38 billion. The Record of Decision did not identify any party or parties as being responsible for the design of the remediation or for the remediation itself. The EPA did note that it estimates the design of the necessary remediation activities will take three to four years, with the remediation to follow, which is estimated to take an additional six years to complete. On March 31, 2016, the EPA issued a letter to approximately 100 companies (including the Company) notifying them of potential liability for the RoD Remediation and of the EPA’s planned approach to addressing the cost of the RoD Remediation, which included the possibility of a de-minimis cash-out settlement (the "settlement option") for certain parties. In April of 2016, the Company notified the EPA of its interest in pursuing the settlement option, and accordingly recorded an immaterial liability representing its best estimate of its minimum liability for the RoD Remediation, which reflects the possibility of a de-minimis settlement. Although the EPA must determine which parties are eligible for the settlement option, the Company does not expect any settlement amount that it might agree with the EPA to be material to its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In the absence of a viable settlement option, the Company is unable to determine its participation in the RoD Remediation, if any, relative to the other potentially responsible parties or the allocation of the estimated cost thereof among the potentially responsible parties, until such time as the EPA reaches an agreement with any potentially responsible party or parties to fund the RoD Remediation (or pursues legal or administrative action to require any potentially responsible party or parties to perform, or pay for, the RoD Remediation). With respect to the RI/FS (which is distinct from the RoD Remediation), until a Record of Decision is issued with respect to the RI/FS, neither the ultimate remedial approach for the remaining upper nine miles of the relevant 17-mile stretch of the River and its cost, nor the Company's participation, if any, relative to the other potentially responsible parties in this approach and cost, can be determined. As such, the Company's liability, if any, beyond that already recorded for (1) its obligations under the 2007 AOC and the Mile 10.9 AOC, and (2) its estimate related to a de minimis cash-out settlement for the RoD Remediation, cannot be determined at this time. However, the Company does not expect that its ultimate liability related to the relevant 17-mile stretch of the River will be material to its financial position, in light of the number of companies that have previously been identified as Potentially Responsible Parties (i.e., the more than 300 parties that were initially designated in litigation as potentially responsible parties), which includes, but goes well beyond those approximately 70 companies in the CPG that participated in the 2007 AOC and the Mile 10.9 AOC, and the Company's relative participation in the costs related to the 2007 AOC and Mile 10.9 AOC. It is nonetheless possible that any resulting liability when the uncertainties discussed above are resolved could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows in the period in which such uncertainties are resolved.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Diamond Sourcing Activities. The Company has agreements with various diamond producers to purchase defined portions of their mines' output at prevailing fair market prices. In addition, the Company also regularly purchases rough and polished diamonds from other suppliers, although it has no contractual obligations to do so.

In consideration of its diamond supply agreements, the Company has provided financing to certain suppliers of its rough diamonds. In March 2011, Laurelton Diamonds, Inc. ("Laurelton"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as lender, entered into a $50.0 million amortizing term loan facility agreement (the "Loan") with Koidu Limited (previously Koidu Holdings S.A.) ("Koidu"), as borrower, and BSG Resources Limited, as a limited guarantor. Koidu operates a kimberlite diamond mine in Sierra Leone (the "Mine") from which Laurelton acquires diamonds. Koidu was required under the terms of the Loan to apply the proceeds of the Loan to capital expenditures necessary to increase the output of the Mine, among other purposes. As of July 31, 2011, the Loan was fully funded. In consideration of the Loan, Laurelton entered into a supply agreement, pursuant to which Laurelton is required to purchase at fair market value certain diamonds recovered from the Mine that meet Laurelton's quality standards. The assets of Koidu, including all equipment and rights in respect of the Mine, are subject to the security interest of a lender that is not affiliated with the Company. The Loan is partially secured by the diamonds, if any, that have been extracted from the Mine and that have not been sold to third parties. The Company has evaluated the variable interest entity consolidation requirements with respect to this transaction and has determined that it is not the primary beneficiary, as it does not have the power to direct any of the activities that most significantly impact Koidu's economic performance.

On March 29, 2013, the Company entered into an amendment relating to the Loan which deferred principal and interest payments due in 2013 to subsequent years, and, on March 31, 2014, the Company entered into a further amendment providing that the principal payments due in 2014 be paid on a monthly basis rather than on a semi-annual basis. On April 30, 2015, the Company entered into a further amendment (the "2015 Amendment"). Pursuant to the 2015 Amendment, once certain customary conditions relating to the addition of one of Koidu's affiliates as an obligor under the Loan were satisfied, the principal payment due on March 30, 2015 would be deferred until a date to be specified by the Company (which date may be upon at least 30 days' written notice to Koidu, or upon the occurrence of certain specified acceleration conditions). As of June 2015, all of the conditions had been satisfied and the deferral of the principal payment due on March 30, 2015 had become effective, subject to the acceleration conditions set forth in the 2015 Amendment, which include Koidu remaining current on its other payment obligations to the Company. The Loan, as amended, is required to be repaid in full by March 2017 through semi-annual payments. Under the 2015 Amendment, the interest rate on the Loan was increased and, as of April 1, 2015, interest will accrue at a rate per annum that is the greater of (i) LIBOR plus 3.5% or (ii) 6.75%. Koidu also agreed to pay, and subsequently paid, an additional 2% per annum of interest on all deferred principal repayments.

As of January 31, 2016, Koidu had not made any of its interest payments due in July 2015 and thereafter, nor its principal payment due in September 2015. The missed payments constitute events of default under the Loan. In February 2016, the Company received the results from two separate and independent reviews of Koidu's operational plans, forecasts, and cash flow projections for the mine, which were commissioned by the Company and by Koidu's largest creditor, respectively. Based on these factors, ongoing discussions with Koidu, and consideration of the possible actions that all parties, including the Government of Sierra Leone and Koidu's largest creditor, might take under the circumstances, management determined that it is probable that it will be unable to collect a portion of the amounts due under the contractual terms of the Loan, and recorded impairment charges, and a related valuation allowance, of $37.9 million in the year ended January 31, 2016. Additionally, the Company ceased accruing interest income on the outstanding Loan balance as of July 31, 2015. At April 30, 2016, there was $43.8 million of principal outstanding under this Loan (see "Note 3. Receivables and Financing Arrangements").

During the three months ended April 30, 2016, Koidu did not make any payments due to the Company under the Loan. Koidu also has yet to provide a proposed revised payment schedule to the Company. The carrying amount of the Company’s loan receivable from Koidu, net of the valuation allowance, was $5.9 million at April 30, 2016 and January 31, 2016.

The Company intends to continue to participate in discussions with Koidu regarding operational plans, forecasts and cash flow projections for the mine, as well as revisions to the payment schedule for the Loan. The Company also intends to continue to participate in discussions with certain of Koidu's stakeholders, including its largest creditor and the Government of Sierra Leone. The outcome of these discussions, as well as any other developments, will inform management's ongoing evaluation of the collectability of the Loan and the accrual of interest income. It is possible that such ongoing evaluation may result in additional changes to management's assessment of collectability. While such changes in management's assessment would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or cash flows, it is possible that such a change in assessment could affect the Company's earnings in the period in which such a change were to occur.

Arbitration Award. On December 21, 2013, an award was issued (the "Arbitration Award") 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"). 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 73.0 million (or approximately $76.0 million at April 30, 2016) (based on its alleged wasted investment) to CHF 3.8 billion (or approximately $3.9 billion at April 30, 2016) (calculated based on alleged future lost profits of the Swatch Parties and their affiliates over the entire term of the Agreements).

The Registrant believes that the claims of the Swatch Parties are without merit. 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 120.0 million (or approximately $124.0 million at April 30, 2016) (based on its wasted investment) to approximately CHF 540.0 million (or approximately $559.0 million at April 30, 2016) (calculated based on alleged future lost profits of the Tiffany Parties).

The Arbitration 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 "Rules"), and the Arbitration record was completed in February 2013.

Under the terms of the Arbitration Award, and at the request of the Swatch Parties and the Tiffany Parties, the Agreements were deemed terminated. The Arbitration Award stated that the effective date of termination was March 1, 2013. Pursuant to the Arbitration Award, the Tiffany Parties were ordered to pay the Swatch Parties damages of CHF 402.7 million (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.

Prior to the ruling of the arbitral panel, no accrual was established in the Company's consolidated financial statements because management did not believe the likelihood of an award of damages to the Swatch Parties was probable. As a result of the ruling, in the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company recorded a charge of $480.2 million, which included the damages, interest, and other costs associated with the ruling and which was classified as Arbitration award expense in the consolidated statement of earnings.

On March 31, 2014, the Tiffany Parties took action in the District Court of Amsterdam 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 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.

A three-judge panel presided over the annulment hearing on January 19, 2015, and, on March 4, 2015, issued a decision in favor of the Tiffany Parties. Under this decision, the Arbitration Award is set aside. However, the Swatch Parties have taken action in the Dutch courts to appeal the District Court's decision, and the Arbitration Award may ultimately be upheld by the courts of the Netherlands. Registrant’s management expects that the annulment action will not be ultimately resolved until, at the earliest, Registrant's fiscal year ending January 31, 2017.

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 have not been determined at this time. Management also anticipates that the Tiffany Parties would seek the return of the amounts paid by them under the Arbitration Award in court proceedings.

In any litigation regarding the claims and counterclaims that formed the basis of the arbitration, 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 Registrant’s consolidated financial statements or liquidity.

Although the District Court has issued a decision in favor of the Tiffany Parties, an amount will only be recorded for any return of amounts paid under the Arbitration Award when the District’s Court decision is final (i.e., after all rights of appeal have been exhausted) and return of these amounts is deemed probable and collection is reasonably assured. As such, the Company has not recorded any amounts in its consolidated financial statements related to the District Court’s decision.

Additionally, management has not established any accrual in the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements for the quarter ended April 30, 2016 related to the annulment process or any potential subsequent litigation because it does not believe that the final annulment of the Arbitration Award and a subsequent award of damages exceeding the Arbitration Damages is probable.

Royalties payable to the Tiffany Parties by Watch Company under the Agreements were not significant in any year. In 2015, management introduced new TIFFANY & CO. brand watches, which have been designed, produced, marketed and distributed through certain of the Company's Swiss subsidiaries.

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 all such 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 emanating from 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 near a tributary of the River from approximately 1897 to 1985, is one of more than 300 parties (the "Potentially Responsible Parties") designated in litigation as potentially responsible parties with respect to the River. The EPA issued general notice letters to 125 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, most of the CPG voluntarily entered into a second AOC related to focused remediation actions at Mile 10.9 of the River. The actions under the Mile 10.9 AOC are complete (except for continued monitoring), the Remedial Investigation ("RI") portion of the RI/FS was submitted to the EPA on February 19, 2015, and the Feasibility Study ("FS") portion of the RI/FS was submitted to the EPA on April 30, 2015. 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.

The FS presented and evaluated three options for remediating the lower 17 miles of the River, including the approach recommended by the EPA in its Focused Feasibility Study discussed below, as well as a fourth option of taking no action, and recommended an approach for a targeted remediation of the entire 17-mile stretch of the River. The estimated cost of the approach recommended by the CPG in the FS is approximately $483.0 million. The RI and FS are being reviewed by the EPA and other governmental agencies and stakeholders. Ultimately, the Company expects that the EPA will identify and negotiate with any or all of the potentially responsible parties regarding any remediation action that may be necessary, and issue a Record of Decision with a proposed approach to remediating the entire lower 17-mile stretch of the River.

Separately, on April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a proposed plan for remediating the lower eight miles of the River, which is supported by a Focused Feasibility Study (the "FFS"). The FFS evaluated three remediation options, as well as a fourth option of taking no action. Following a public review and comment period and the EPA's review of comments received, the EPA issued a Record of Decision on March 4, 2016 that set forth a remediation plan for the lower eight miles of the River (the "RoD Remediation"). The RoD Remediation is estimated by the EPA to cost $1.38 billion. The Record of Decision did not identify any party or parties as being responsible for the design of the remediation or for the remediation itself. The EPA did note that it estimates the design of the necessary remediation activities will take three to four years, with the remediation to follow, which is estimated to take an additional six years to complete.

On March 31, 2016, the EPA issued a letter to approximately 100 companies (including the Company) notifying them of potential liability for the RoD Remediation and of the EPA’s planned approach to addressing the cost of the RoD Remediation, which included the possibility of a de-minimis cash-out settlement (the "settlement option") for certain parties. In April of 2016, the Company notified the EPA of its interest in pursuing the settlement option, and accordingly recorded an immaterial liability representing its best estimate of its minimum liability for the RoD Remediation, which reflects the possibility of a de-minimis settlement. Although the EPA must determine which parties are eligible for the settlement option, the Company does not expect any settlement amount that it might agree with the EPA to be material to its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In the absence of a viable settlement option, the Company is unable to determine its participation in the RoD Remediation, if any, relative to the other potentially responsible parties or the allocation of the estimated cost thereof among the potentially responsible parties, until such time as the EPA reaches an agreement with any potentially responsible party or parties to fund the RoD Remediation (or pursues legal or administrative action to require any potentially responsible party or parties to perform, or pay for, the RoD Remediation). With respect to the RI/FS (which is distinct from the RoD Remediation), until a Record of Decision is issued with respect to the RI/FS, neither the ultimate remedial approach for the remaining upper nine miles of the relevant 17-mile stretch of the River and its cost, nor the Company's participation, if any, relative to the other potentially responsible parties in this approach and cost, can be determined.

As such, the Company's liability, if any, beyond that already recorded for (1) its obligations under the 2007 AOC and the Mile 10.9 AOC, and (2) its estimate related to a de minimis cash-out settlement for the RoD Remediation, cannot be determined at this time. However, the Company does not expect that its ultimate liability related to the relevant 17-mile stretch of the River will be material to its financial position, in light of the number of companies that have previously been identified as Potentially Responsible Parties (i.e., the more than 300 parties that were initially designated in litigation as potentially responsible parties), which includes, but goes well beyond those approximately 70 companies in the CPG that participated in the 2007 AOC and the Mile 10.9 AOC, and the Company's relative participation in the costs related to the 2007 AOC and Mile 10.9 AOC. It is nonetheless possible that any resulting liability when the uncertainties discussed above are resolved could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows in the period in which such uncertainties are resolved.