Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Oct. 29, 2011

Contingencies [Abstract]

CONTINGENCIES

16.CONTINGENCIES

A&F is a defendant in lawsuits and other adversary proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Legal costs incurred in connection with the resolution of claims and lawsuits are generally expensed as incurred, and the Company establishes reserves for the outcome of litigation where it deems appropriate to do so under applicable accounting rules. Actual liabilities may exceed the amounts reserved, and there can be no assurance that final resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company intends to defend the following pending matters vigorously, as appropriate. The Company is unable to quantify the potential exposure of the following pending matters. However, the Company's assessment of the current exposure could change in the event of the discovery of additional facts with respect to legal matters pending against the Company or determinations by judges, juries, administrative agencies or other finders of fact that are not in accordance with the Company's evaluation of the claims. The Company's identified contingencies include the following matters:

On June 23, 2006, Lisa Hashimoto, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. In that action, plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of a putative class of California store managers employed in Hollister and abercrombie kids stores, that they were entitled to receive overtime pay as “non-exempt” employees under California wage and hour laws. The complaint sought injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants answered the complaint on August 21, 2006, denying liability. On June 23, 2008, the defendants settled all claims of Hollister and abercrombie kids store managers who served in stores from June 23, 2002 through April 30, 2004, but continued to oppose the plaintiffs' remaining claims. On January 29, 2009, the Court certified a class consisting of all store managers who served at Hollister and abercrombie kids stores in California from May 1, 2004 through the future date upon which the action concludes. The parties then continued to litigate the claims of that putative class. On May 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice that they did not intend to continue to pursue their claim that members of the class did not exercise independent managerial judgment and discretion. They also asked the Court to vacate the August 9, 2010 trial date previously set by the Court.On July 20, 2010, the trial court vacated the trial date and the defendants then moved to decertify the putative class. On April 7, 2011, the trial court granted defendants' motion and decertified the putative class. The parties continued to litigate the claims of the individual plaintiffs until November of 2011, when all of those claims were settled for an immaterial amountand released.

On September 16, 2005, a derivative action, styled The Booth Family Trust v. Michael S. Jeffries, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, naming A&F as a nominal defendant and seeking to assert claims for unspecified damages against nine of A&F's present and former directors, alleging various breaches of the directors' fiduciary duty and seeking equitable and monetary relief. In the following three months, four similar derivative actions were filed (three in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and one in the Court of Common Pleas for Franklin County, Ohio) against present and former directors of A&F alleging various breaches of the directors' fiduciary duty allegedly arising out of antecedent employment law and securities class actions brought against the Company. A consolidated amended derivative complaint was filed in the federal proceeding on July 10, 2006. On February 16, 2007, A&F announced that its Board of Directors had received a report of the Special Litigation Committee established by the Board to investigate and act with respect to claims asserted in the derivative cases, which concluded that there was no evidence to support the asserted claims and directed the Company to seek dismissal of the derivative cases. On September 10, 2007, the Company moved to dismiss the federal derivative cases on the authority of the Special Litigation Committee Report. On March 12, 2009, the Company's motion was granted and, on April 10, 2009, plaintiffs filed an appeal from the order of dismissal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On April 5, 2011, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court and remanded the action for further proceedings. The state court has stayed further proceedings in the state-court derivative action until resolution of the consolidated federal derivative cases. On November 1, 2011, the District Court entered an order which gave preliminary approval to a proposed settlement of the consolidated derivative litigation. The District Court also set a hearing (the “Fairness Hearing”) for December 13, 2011 to determine whether the proposed settlement, which provides for revisions to certain of the Company's corporate governance regulations, should be finally approved and to consider an award of fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel. The District Court also directed that notice be given to the Company's stockholders concerning the proposed settlement and their right to be heard in connection with the Fairness Hearing.

On December 21, 2007, Spencer de la Cruz, a former employee, filed an action against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”) in the Superior Court of Orange County, California. He sought to allege, on behalf of himself and a putative class of past and present employees in the period beginning on December 19, 2003, claims for failure to provide meal breaks, for waiting time penalties, for failure to keep accurate employment records, and for unfair business practices. By successive amendments, plaintiff added 10 additional plaintiffs and additional claims seeking injunctive relief, unpaid wages, penalties, interest, and attorney's fees and costs. Defendants have denied the material allegations of plaintiffs' complaints throughout the litigation and have asserted numerous affirmative defenses. On July 23, 2010, plaintiffs moved for class certification in the action. On December 9, 2010, after briefing and argument, the trial court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion, certifying sub-classes to pursue meal break claims, meal premium pay claims, work related travel claims, travel expense claims, termination pay claims, reporting time claims, bag check claims, pay record claims, and minimum wage claims. The parties are continuing to litigate questions relating to the Court's certification order and to the merits of plaintiffs' claims.