Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Jan. 28, 2012

Contingencies [Abstract]

CONTINGENCIES

19.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. Moreover, 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 claims. 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's identified contingencies include the following matters:

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. 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 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 19, 2011, the District Court, after the Fairness Hearing, entered a final order (1) approving the proposed settlement submitted to the District Court by the parties to the derivative litigation and (2) dismissing with prejudice all claims contained in the 2005 derivative cases. The District Court's order also resulted in dismissal of the state-court derivative action, which had been stayed pending resolution of the federal derivative cases.

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 (the “Court”). 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 denied the material allegations of plaintiffs' complaints throughout the litigation and 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 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 continued to litigate questions relating to the Court's certification order and to the merits of plaintiffs' claims until January 25, 2012. On that date, the named plaintiffs and the Defendants signed a memorandum of understanding which, subject to final Court approval, was intended to result in a full and final settlement of all claims in the action on a class-wide basis. A formal Settlement Agreement and related papers were filed with the Court on February 21, 2012 and the Court scheduled a hearing on March 14, 2012 to determine whether to provide preliminary approval to the proposed settlement and to order that notice of the proposed settlement be given to the absent members of the settlement class. On March 14, 2012, the Court continued the hearing to April 18, 2012. As of January 28, 2012, the Company increased its litigation reserve to cover the expected cost of the proposed settlement.

On October 17, 2011, Amber Echavez, a former employee, filed an action against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and two of its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Defendants”) in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California. She alleged the Defendants violated California labor laws by failing to provide suitable seats for her and for other current and former employees. She sought to maintain the suit as a class action on behalf of a class of retail sales employees and also as a representative action under California's Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). On November 23, 2011, the Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”) and on February 6, 2012, moved (1) to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim and (2) to strike plaintiff's class allegations. On March 12, 2012, the Court entered an order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss and granting Defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's class allegations. The parties are continuing to litigate plaintiff's remaining claims.