As of February 3, 2012, the Company was committed under operating lease agreements for most of its retail stores. Many of the Company's stores are subject to build-to-suit arrangements with landlords which typically carry a primary lease term of 10-15 years with multiple renewal options. The Company also has stores subject to shorter-term leases and many of these leases have renewal options. Approximately 26% of the leased stores have provisions for contingent rentals based upon a specified percentage of defined sales volume.

The land and buildings of the Company's DCs in Fulton, Missouri and Indianola, Mississippi are subject to operating lease agreements and the leased Ardmore, Oklahoma DC is subject to a financing arrangement. The entities involved in the ownership structure underlying these leases meet the accounting definition of a Variable Interest Entity ("VIE"). The Company is not the primary beneficiary of these VIEs and, accordingly, has not included these entities in its consolidated financial statements. Certain leases contain restrictive covenants. As of February 3, 2012, the Company is not aware of any material violations of such covenants.

In January 1999, the Company sold its DC located in Ardmore, Oklahoma for cash and concurrent with the sale transaction, the Company leased the property back for a period of 23 years. The transaction is accounted for as a financing obligation rather than a sale as a result of, among other things, the lessor's ability to put the property back to the Company under certain circumstances. The property and equipment, along with the related lease obligation associated with this transaction are recorded in the consolidated balance sheets. In August 2007, the Company purchased a secured promissory note (the "Ardmore Note") from an unrelated third party with a face value of $34.3 million at the date of purchase which approximated the remaining financing obligation. The Ardmore Note represents debt issued by the third party entity from which the Company leases the Ardmore DC and therefore the Company holds the debt instrument pertaining to its lease financing obligation. Because a legal right of offset exists, the Company is accounting for the Ardmore Note as a reduction of its outstanding financing obligation in its consolidated balance sheets.

Future minimum payments as of February 3, 2012 for operating leases are as follows:

(In thousands)

2012	$	537,842
2013		495,373
2014		442,913
2015		379,693
2016		324,512
Thereafter		1,479,668

Total minimum payments	$	3,660,001

Total minimum payments for capital leases as of February 3, 2012 were $7.4 million, with a present value of $5.1 million at an effective interest rate of approximately 6.8% at February 3, 2012. The gross amount of property and equipment recorded under capital leases and financing obligations at February 3, 2012 and at January 28, 2011, was $29.0 million and $31.0 million, respectively. Accumulated depreciation on property and equipment under capital leases and financing obligations at February 3, 2012 and January 28, 2011, was $7.3 million and $7.4 million, respectively.

(In thousands)	2011		2010		2009

Minimum rentals(a)	$	525,486	$	471,402	$	407,379
Contingent rentals		16,856		17,882		21,248

	$	542,342	$	489,284	$	428,627

On August 7, 2006, a lawsuit entitled Cynthia Richter, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 7:06-cv-01537-LSC) ("Richter") in which the plaintiff alleges that she and other current and former Dollar General store managers were improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 15, 2006, the Richter plaintiff filed a motion in which she asked the court to certify a nationwide class of current and former store managers. The Company opposed the plaintiff's motion. On March 23, 2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class. On December 2, 2009, notice was mailed to over 28,000 current or former Dollar General store managers. Approximately 3,950 individuals have opted into the lawsuit, approximately 800 of whom have been dismissed for various reasons, including failure to cooperate in discovery.

On January 31, 2012, the court entered an amended scheduling order that governs, among other things, an extended deadline for certain limited fact discovery (March 9, 2012) and the Company's anticipated decertification motion (April 2, 2012). No deadline currently exists for potentially dispositive motions, and the Court has not set a trial date.

The Company believes that its store managers are and have been properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and that the Richter action is not appropriate for collective action treatment. The Company has obtained summary judgment in some, although not all, of its pending individual or single-plaintiff store manager exemption cases in which it has filed such a motion.

The Company is vigorously defending the Richter matter. However, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether Richter ultimately will be permitted to proceed collectively, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of the action on the merits or otherwise. Similarly, at this time the Company cannot estimate either the size of any potential class or the value of the claims asserted in Richter. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in the matter; however, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of Richter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial statements as a whole.

On May 18, 2006, the Company was served with a lawsuit entitled Tammy Brickey, Becky Norman, Rose Rochow, Sandra Cogswell and Melinda Sappington v. Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General Corporation (Western District of New York, Case No. 6:06-cv-06084-DGL, originally filed on February 9, 2006 and amended on May 12, 2006 ("Brickey")). The Brickey plaintiffs sought to proceed collectively under the FLSA and as a class under New York, Ohio, Maryland and North Carolina wage and hour statutes on behalf of, among others, assistant store managers who claim to be owed wages (including overtime wages) under those statutes. On February 22, 2011, the court denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion in its entirety and ordered that the matter proceed only as to the named plaintiffs. On March 22, 2011, the plaintiffs moved the court for reconsideration of its Order denying their class certification motion. On March 30, 2011, the plaintiffs' reconsideration motion was denied, and the plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling. The case is proceeding now only as to the named plaintiffs, and the Company does not expect the outcome to be material to its financial statements as a whole.

On March 7, 2006, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Janet Calvert v. Dolgencorp, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00465-VEH ("Calvert")), in which the plaintiff, a former store manager, alleged that she was paid less than male store managers because of her sex, in violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII") (now captioned, Wanda Womack, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00465-VEH). The complaint subsequently was amended to include additional plaintiffs, who also allege to have been paid less than males because of their sex, and to add allegations that the Company's compensation practices disparately impact females. Under the amended complaint, plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under the Equal Pay Act and as a class under Title VII, and request back wages, injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion in which they asked the court to approve the issuance of notice to a class of current and former female store managers under the Equal Pay Act. The Company opposed plaintiffs' motion. On November 30, 2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class of females under the Equal Pay Act who worked for Dollar General as store managers between November 30, 2004 and November 30, 2007. The notice was issued on January 11, 2008, and persons to whom the notice was sent were required to opt into the suit by March 11, 2008. Approximately 2,100 individuals opted into the lawsuit.

On April 19, 2010, the plaintiffs moved for class certification relating to their Title VII claims. The Company filed its response to the certification motion in June 2010. Briefing has closed, and the motion remains pending. The Company's motion to decertify the Equal Pay Act class was denied as premature. If the case proceeds, the Company expects to file a similar motion in due course.

The parties agreed to mediate this action, and the court stayed the action pending the results of the mediation. The mediation occurred in March and April, 2011, and the Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter on behalf of the entire putative class. The proposed settlement, which still must be approved by the court, provides for both monetary and equitable relief. Under the proposed terms, the Company will pay $15.5 million into a fund for the class members that will be apportioned and paid out to individual members (less any additional attorneys' fees or litigation costs approved by the court), upon submission of a valid claim. It will pay an additional $3.25 million for plaintiffs' legal fees and costs. Of the total $18.75 million anticipated payment, the Company expects to receive reimbursement from its Employment Practices Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier of approximately $15.9 million, which represents the balance remaining of the $20 million EPLI policy covering the claims. In addition, the Company has agreed to make certain adjustments to its pay setting policies and procedures for new store managers. If the settlement is approved, the Company expects to implement the new pay policies and practices no later than April 2012. Documents related to the parties' request for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement were filed on October 28, 2011. A hearing on the proposed settlement has been held and the Company expects the court to approve the settlement soon. Because it deemed settlement probable and estimable, the Company accrued for the net settlement as well as for certain additional anticipated fees related thereto during the first quarter of 2011, and concurrently recorded a receivable of approximately $15.9 million from its EPLI carrier.

At this time, although probable it is not certain that the court will approve the settlement. If it does not, and the case proceeds, it is not possible at this time to predict whether the court ultimately will permit the action to proceed collectively under the Equal Pay Act or as a class under Title VII. Although the Company intends to vigorously defend the action, no assurances can be given that it would be successful in the defense on the merits or otherwise. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company cannot estimate either the size of any potential class or the value of the claims raised in this action if it proceeds. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in such a scenario; however, if the Company is not successful in defending this action, its resolution could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial statements as a whole.

On June 16, 2010, a lawsuit entitled Shaleka Gross, et al v. Dollar General Corporation was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Civil Action No. 3:10CV340WHB-LR) ("Gross") in which three former non-exempt store employees, on behalf of themselves and certain other non-exempt Dollar General store employees, alleged that they were not paid for all hours worked in violation of the FLSA. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that they were not properly paid for certain breaks and sought back wages (including overtime wages), liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Before the Company was served with the Gross complaint, the plaintiffs dismissed the action and re-filed it in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, now captioned as Cynthia Walker, et al. v. Dollar General Corporation, et al. (Civil Action No. 4:10-CV119-P-S) ("Walker"). The Walker complaint was filed on September 16, 2010, and although it added approximately eight additional plaintiffs, it added no substantive allegations beyond those alleged in the Gross complaint. No other individuals opted into the Walker matter, and the entire matter was resolved for an amount that is immaterial to the Company's financial statements as a whole.

On May 20, 2011, a lawsuit entitled Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al. v. Dolgencorp, LLC was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:11-cv-80601-DMM) ("Winn-Dixie") in which the plaintiffs allege that the sale of food and other items in approximately 55 of the Company's stores, each of which allegedly is or was at some time co-located in a shopping center with one of plaintiffs' stores, violates restrictive covenants that plaintiffs contend are binding on the occupants of the shopping centers. Plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction limiting the sale of food and other items in those stores. Although plaintiffs have not made a demand for any specific amount of damages at this point in the proceeding, documents prepared and produced by plaintiffs during discovery suggest that plaintiffs may seek as much as $47 million. The Company intends to vigorously defend the Winn-Dixie matter and views that sum as wholly without basis and unsupported by the law and the facts currently available. The various leases involved in the matter are unique in their terms and/or the factual circumstances surrounding them, and, in some cases, the stores named by plaintiffs are not now and have never been co-located with plaintiffs' stores. The Company has filed a motion challenging the admissibility of plaintiffs' damages expert. Hearings on that motion were held on January 23 and on February 29, 2012, and no ruling has been made. The case is currently scheduled for trial in May of 2012 and has been consolidated with similar cases against Big Lots and Dollar Tree. However, at this time, no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of the action on the merits or otherwise. Similarly, at this time, because of certain outstanding threshold issues that have yet to be addressed by the court, the Company is unable to estimate potential losses; however, if the Company is not successful in defending the Winn-Dixie matter, the outcome could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial statements as a whole.

In October 2008, the Company terminated an interest rate swap as a result of the counterparty's declaration of bankruptcy. This declaration of bankruptcy constituted a default under the contract governing the swap, giving the Company the right to terminate. The Company subsequently settled the swap in November 2008 for approximately $7.6 million, including interest accrued to the date of termination. On May 14, 2010, the Company received a demand from the counterparty for an additional payment of approximately $19 million plus interest, claiming that the valuation used to calculate the $7.6 million was commercially unreasonable, and seeking to invoke the alternative dispute resolution procedures established by the bankruptcy court. The Company participated in the alternative dispute resolution procedures as it believed a reasonable settlement would be in the best interest of the Company to avoid the substantial risk and costs of litigation. In April of 2011, the Company reached a settlement with the counterparty under which the Company paid an additional $9.85 million in exchange for a full release. The Company accrued the settlement amount along with additional expected fees and costs related thereto in the first quarter of 2011. The settlement was finalized and the payment was made in May 2011.

From time to time, the Company is a party to various other legal actions involving claims incidental to the conduct of its business, including actions by employees, consumers, suppliers, government agencies, or others through private actions, class actions, administrative proceedings, regulatory actions or other litigation, including without limitation under federal and state employment laws and wage and hour laws. The Company believes, based upon information currently available, that such other litigation and claims, both individually and in the aggregate, will be resolved without a material adverse effect on the Company's financial statements as a whole. However, litigation involves an element of uncertainty. Future developments could cause these actions or claims to have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows, or financial position. In addition, certain of these lawsuits, if decided adversely to the Company or settled by the Company, may result in liability material to the Company's financial position or may negatively affect operating results if changes to the Company's business operation are required.