Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Oct. 27, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings Environmental Matters New York State Environmental Matters In August 1997, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) and the Company entered into a consent order whereby the Company assumed responsibility for conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RIFS”) and implementing an interim remedial measure (“IRM”) with regard to the site of a knitting mill operated by a former subsidiary of the Company from 1965 to 1969. The Company undertook the IRM and RIFS voluntarily, without admitting liability or accepting responsibility for any future remediation of the site. The Company has completed the IRM and the RIFS. In the course of preparing the RIFS, the Company identified remedial alternatives with estimated undiscounted costs ranging from $0 million to $24.0 million, excluding amounts previously expended or provided for by the Company. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), which has assumed primary regulatory responsibility for the site from NYSDEC, issued a Record of Decision in September 2007. The Record of Decision requires a remedy of a combination of groundwater extraction and treatment and in-site chemical oxidation at an estimated present cost of approximately $10.7 million. In July 2009, the Company agreed to a Consent Order with the EPA requiring the Company to perform certain remediation actions, operations, maintenance and monitoring at the site. In September 2009, a Consent Judgment embodying the Consent Order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Village of Garden City, New York, has additionally asserted that the Company is liable for the costs associated with enhanced treatment required by the impact of the groundwater plume from the site on two public water supply wells, including historical costs ranging from approximately $1.8 million to in excess of $2.5 million, and future operation and maintenance costs which the Village estimates at $126,400 annually while the enhanced treatment continues. On December 14, 2007, the Village filed a complaint against the Company and the owner of the property under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) as well as a number of state law theories in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking an injunction requiring the defendants to remediate contamination from the site and to establish their liability for future costs that may be incurred in connection with it, which the complaint alleges could exceed $41 million, undiscounted, over a 70-year period. The Company has not verified the estimates of either historic or future costs asserted by the Village, but believes that an estimate of future costs based on a 70-year remediation period is unreasonable given the expected remedial period reflected in the EPA's Record of Decision. On May 23, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Village's complaint on grounds including applicable statutes of limitation and preemption of certain claims by the NYSDEC's and the EPA's diligent prosecution of remediation. On January 27, 2009, the Court granted the motion to dismiss Note 8 Legal Proceedings, Continued all counts of the plaintiff's complaint except for the CERCLA claim and a state law claim for indemnity for costs incurred after November 27, 2000. On September 23, 2009, on a motion for reconsideration by the Village, the Court reinstated the claims for injunctive relief under RCRA and for equitable relief under certain of the state law theories. The Company intends to continue to defend the action. In December 2005, the EPA notified the Company that it considers the Company a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) with respect to contamination at two Superfund sites in upstate New York. The sites were used as landfills for process wastes generated by a glue manufacturer, which acquired tannery wastes from several tanners, allegedly including the Company's Whitehall tannery, for use as raw materials in the gluemaking process. The Company has no records indicating that it ever provided raw materials to the gluemaking operation and has not been able to establish whether the EPA's substantive allegations are accurate. The Company, together with other tannery PRPs, has entered into cost sharing agreements and Consent Decrees with the EPA with respect to both sites. Based upon the current estimates of the cost of remediation, the Company's share is expected to be less than $250,000 in total for the two sites. While there is no assurance that the Company's share of the actual cost of remediation will not exceed the estimate, the Company does not presently expect that its aggregate exposure with respect to these two landfill sites will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations. Whitehall Environmental Matters The Company has performed sampling and analysis of soil, sediments, surface water, groundwater and waste management areas at the Company's former Volunteer Leather Company facility in Whitehall, Michigan. In October 2010, the Company and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment entered into a Consent Decree providing for implementation of a remedial Work Plan for the facility site designed to bring the site into compliance with applicable regulatory standards. The Work Plan's implementation is substantially complete and the Company expects, based on its present understanding of the condition of the site, that its future obligations with respect to the site will be limited to periodic monitoring and that future costs related to the site should not have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations. Accrual for Environmental Contingencies Related to all outstanding environmental contingencies, the Company had accrued $11.8 million as of October 27, 2012, $13.0 million as of January 28, 2012 and $13.2 million as of October 29, 2011. All such provisions reflect the Company's estimates of the most likely cost (undiscounted, including both current and noncurrent portions) of resolving the contingencies, based on facts and circumstances as of the time they were made. There is no assurance that relevant facts and circumstances will not change, necessitating future changes to the provisions. Such contingent liabilities are included in the liability arising from provision for discontinued operations on the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets because it relates to former facilities operated by the Company. The Company has made pretax accruals for certain of these contingencies, including approximately $0.2 million reflected in each of the third quarters of Fiscal 2013 and 2012, and $0.6 million and $1.8 million reflected in the first nine months of Fiscal 2013 and 2012, respectively. These charges are included in provision for discontinued operations, net in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and represent changes in estimates. Note 8 Legal Proceedings, Continued Other Matters On December 10, 2010, the Company announced that it had suffered a criminal intrusion into the portion of its computer network that processes payments for transactions in certain of its retail stores. Visa, Inc., MasterCard Worldwide and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. have asserted claims totaling approximately $15.6 million in connection with the intrusion. The Company disputes the validity of these claims and intends to contest them vigorously and thus has no liability accrual with respect to them. There can be no assurance that additional claims related to the intrusion will not be asserted by these or other parties in the future, but the Company does not currently expect any potential additional claims to have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations. On January 5, 2012, a patent infringement action against the Company and numerous other defendants was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, GeoTag, Inc. v. Circle K Store, Inc., et al., alleging that features of certain of the Company's e-commerce websites infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,930,474, entitled “Internet Organizer for Accessing Geographically and Topically Based Information.” The plaintiff seeks relief including damages for the alleged infringement, costs, expenses and pre- and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief. The Company disputes the validity of the claim and intends to defend the matter and thus has no liability accrual in connection with it. On May 14, 2012, a putative class and collective action, Maro v. Hat World, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The action alleges that the Company failed to pay the plaintiff and other, similarly situated retail store employees of Hat World, Inc., for time spent making bank deposits of store collections, and seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorneys fees, and costs pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. On July 16, 2012 and July 30, 2012, additional putative class and collective actions, Chavez v. Hat World, Inc. and Dismukes v. Hat World, Inc., were filed in the same court, alleging that certain Hat World employees were misclassified as exempt from overtime pay, and seeking similar relief. The Chavez and Dismukes actions have been consolidated. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action, intends to defend it, and thus has no liability accrual in connection with it. In addition to the matters specifically described in this Note, the Company is a party to other legal and regulatory proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. While management does not believe that the Company's liability with respect to any of these other matters is likely to have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations, legal proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings could have a material adverse impact on the Company's business and results of operations.

Legal Proceedings

Environmental Matters

New York State Environmental Matters

In August 1997, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) and the Company entered into a consent order whereby the Company assumed responsibility for conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RIFS”) and implementing an interim remedial measure (“IRM”) with regard to the site of a knitting mill operated by a former subsidiary of the Company from 1965 to 1969. The Company undertook the IRM and RIFS voluntarily, without admitting liability or accepting responsibility for any future remediation of the site. The Company has completed the IRM and the RIFS. In the course of preparing the RIFS, the Company identified remedial alternatives with estimated undiscounted costs ranging from $0 million to $24.0 million, excluding amounts previously expended or provided for by the Company. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), which has assumed primary regulatory responsibility for the site from NYSDEC, issued a Record of Decision in September 2007. The Record of Decision requires a remedy of a combination of groundwater extraction and treatment and in-site chemical oxidation at an estimated present cost of approximately $10.7 million.

In July 2009, the Company agreed to a Consent Order with the EPA requiring the Company to perform certain remediation actions, operations, maintenance and monitoring at the site. In September 2009, a Consent Judgment embodying the Consent Order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The Village of Garden City, New York, has additionally asserted that the Company is liable for the costs associated with enhanced treatment required by the impact of the groundwater plume from the site on two public water supply wells, including historical costs ranging from approximately $1.8 million to in excess of $2.5 million, and future operation and maintenance costs which the Village estimates at $126,400 annually while the enhanced treatment continues. On December 14, 2007, the Village filed a complaint against the Company and the owner of the property under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) as well as a number of state law theories in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking an injunction requiring the defendants to remediate contamination from the site and to establish their liability for future costs that may be incurred in connection with it, which the complaint alleges could exceed $41 million, undiscounted, over a 70-year period. The Company has not verified the estimates of either historic or future costs asserted by the Village, but believes that an estimate of future costs based on a 70-year remediation period is unreasonable given the expected remedial period reflected in the EPA's Record of Decision. On May 23, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Village's complaint on grounds including applicable statutes of limitation and preemption of certain claims by the NYSDEC's and the EPA's diligent prosecution of remediation. On January 27, 2009, the Court granted the motion to dismiss

Note 8

Legal Proceedings, Continued

all counts of the plaintiff's complaint except for the CERCLA claim and a state law claim for indemnity for costs incurred after November 27, 2000. On September 23, 2009, on a motion for reconsideration by the Village, the Court reinstated the claims for injunctive relief under RCRA and for equitable relief under certain of the state law theories. The Company intends to continue to defend the action.

In December 2005, the EPA notified the Company that it considers the Company a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) with respect to contamination at two Superfund sites in upstate New York. The sites were used as landfills for process wastes generated by a glue manufacturer, which acquired tannery wastes from several tanners, allegedly including the Company's Whitehall tannery, for use as raw materials in the

gluemaking process. The Company has no records indicating that it ever provided raw materials to the gluemaking operation and has not been able to establish whether the EPA's substantive allegations are accurate. The Company, together with other tannery PRPs, has entered into cost sharing agreements and Consent Decrees with the EPA with respect to both sites. Based upon the current estimates of the cost of remediation, the Company's share is expected to be less than $250,000 in total for the two sites. While there is no assurance that the Company's share of the actual cost of remediation will not exceed the estimate, the Company does not presently expect that its aggregate exposure with respect to these two landfill sites will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

Whitehall Environmental Matters

The Company has performed sampling and analysis of soil, sediments, surface water, groundwater and waste management areas at the Company's former Volunteer Leather Company facility in Whitehall, Michigan.

In October 2010, the Company and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment entered into a Consent Decree providing for implementation of a remedial Work Plan for the facility site designed to bring the site into compliance with applicable regulatory standards. The Work Plan's implementation is substantially complete and the Company expects, based on its present understanding of the condition of the site, that its future obligations with respect to the site will be limited to periodic monitoring and that future costs related to the site should not have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

Accrual for Environmental Contingencies

Related to all outstanding environmental contingencies, the Company had accrued $11.8 million as of October 27, 2012, $13.0 million as of January 28, 2012 and $13.2 million as of October 29, 2011. All such provisions reflect the Company's estimates of the most likely cost (undiscounted, including both current and noncurrent portions) of resolving the contingencies, based on facts and circumstances as of the time they were made. There is no assurance that relevant facts and circumstances will not change, necessitating future changes to the provisions. Such contingent liabilities are included in the liability arising from provision for discontinued operations on the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets because it relates to former facilities operated by the Company. The Company has made pretax accruals for certain of these contingencies, including approximately $0.2 million reflected in each of the third quarters of Fiscal 2013 and 2012, and $0.6 million and $1.8 million reflected in the first nine months of Fiscal 2013 and 2012, respectively. These charges are included in provision for discontinued operations, net in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and represent changes in estimates.

Note 8

Legal Proceedings, Continued

Other Matters

On December 10, 2010, the Company announced that it had suffered a criminal intrusion into the portion of its computer network that processes payments for transactions in certain of its retail stores. Visa, Inc., MasterCard Worldwide and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. have asserted claims totaling approximately $15.6 million in connection with the intrusion. The Company disputes the validity of these claims and intends to contest them vigorously and thus has no liability accrual with respect to them. There can be no assurance that additional claims related to the intrusion will not be asserted by these or other parties in the future, but the Company does not currently expect any potential additional claims to have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

On January 5, 2012, a patent infringement action against the Company and numerous other defendants was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, GeoTag, Inc. v. Circle K Store, Inc., et al., alleging that features of certain of the Company's e-commerce websites infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,930,474, entitled “Internet Organizer for Accessing Geographically and Topically Based Information.” The plaintiff seeks relief including damages for the alleged infringement, costs, expenses and pre- and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief. The Company disputes the validity of the claim and intends to defend the matter and thus has no liability accrual in connection with it.

On May 14, 2012, a putative class and collective action, Maro v. Hat World, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The action alleges that the Company failed to pay the plaintiff and other, similarly situated retail store employees of Hat World, Inc., for time spent making bank deposits of store collections, and seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorneys fees, and costs pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. On July 16, 2012 and July 30, 2012, additional putative class and collective actions, Chavez v. Hat World, Inc. and Dismukes v. Hat World, Inc., were filed in the same court, alleging that certain Hat World employees were misclassified as exempt from overtime pay, and seeking similar relief. The Chavez and Dismukes actions have been consolidated. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action, intends to defend it, and thus has no liability accrual in connection with it.

In addition to the matters specifically described in this Note, the Company is a party to other legal and regulatory proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. While management does not believe that the Company's liability with respect to any of these other matters is likely to have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations, legal proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings could have a material adverse impact on the Company's business and results of operations.