8. Commitments and contingencies

Leases

As of January 31, 2014, 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 up to 15 years with multiple renewal options. The Company also has stores subject to shorter-term leases and many of these leases have renewal options. Certain of the Company's 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 that, individually, are not material to the Company. As of January 31, 2014, the Company is not aware of any material violations of such covenants.

In January 2014, the Company sold 233 store locations for cash and concurrent with the sale transaction, the Company leased the properties back for a period of 15 years. The transaction resulted in cash proceeds of approximately $281.6 million and a deferred gain of $67.2 million which will be recognized as a reduction of rent expense over the 15-year initial lease term of the properties.

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 January 31, 2014 for operating leases are as follows:

(In thousands)

2014	$	712,563
2015		665,193
2016		610,643
2017		554,413
2018		496,265
Thereafter		2,699,755


Total minimum payments	$	5,738,832

Total minimum payments for capital leases as of January 31, 2014 were $8.7 million, with a present value of $6.8 million at January 31, 2014. The gross amount of property and equipment recorded under capital leases and financing obligations at both January 31, 2014 and February 1, 2013, was $29.8 million. Accumulated depreciation on property and equipment under capital leases and financing obligations at January 31, 2014 and February 1, 2013, was $8.7 million and $6.9 million, respectively.

Rent expense under all operating leases is as follows:

(In thousands)	2013		2012		2011

Minimum rentals(a)	$	674,849	$	599,138	$	525,486
Contingent rentals		12,058		15,150		16,856


	$	686,907	$	614,288	$	542,342

(a): Excludes amortization of leasehold interests of $11.9 million, $16.9 million and $21.0 million included in rent expense for the years ended January 31, 2014, February 1, 2013, and February 3, 2012, respectively.

Legal proceedings

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 opted into the lawsuit, approximately 1,000 of whom have been dismissed for various reasons, including failure to cooperate in discovery.

On April 2, 2012, the Company moved to decertify the class. The plaintiff's response to that motion was filed on May 9, 2012.

On October 22, 2012, the court entered a Memorandum Opinion granting the Company's decertification motion. On December 19, 2012, the court entered an Order decertifying the matter and stating that a separate Order would be entered regarding the opt-in plaintiffs' rights and Cynthia Richter's individual claims. To date, the court has not entered such an Order.

The parties agreed to mediate the matter, and the court informally stayed the action pending the results of the mediation. Mediations were conducted in January, April and August 2013. On August 10, 2013, the parties reached a preliminary agreement, which has been formalized and submitted to the court for approval, to resolve the matter for up to $8.5 million. The Company has deemed the settlement probable and recorded such amount as the estimated expense in the second quarter of 2013.

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.

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 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 if this action were to proceed. 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 its defense efforts, the resolution of Richter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements as a whole.

On April 9, 2012, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entitled Jonathan Marcum v. Dolgencorp. Inc. (Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-00108-JRS) in which the plaintiffs, one of whose conditional offer of employment was rescinded, allege that certain of the Company's background check procedures violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). Plaintiff Marcum also alleges defamation. According to the complaint and subsequently filed first and second amended complaints, the plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of applicants in connection with their FCRA claims. The Company responded to the complaint and each of the amended complaints. The plaintiffs' certification motion was due to be filed on or before April 5, 2013; however, plaintiffs asked the court to stay all deadlines in light of the parties' ongoing settlement discussions (as more fully described below). On November 12, 2013, the court entered an order lifting the stay. The court has not issued a new scheduling order but has set a pre-trial conference for March 27, 2014.

The parties have engaged in formal settlement discussions on three occasions, once in January 2013 with a private mediator, and again in March 2013 and July 2013 with a federal magistrate. On February 18, 2014, the parties reached a preliminary agreement to resolve the matter for up to $4.08 million, which must be submitted to and approved by the court. Based on this preliminary settlement agreement, the Company believes, but cannot guarantee, that the court will not proceed with the March 27, 2014, pre-trial conference.

The Company's Employment Practices Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier has been placed on notice of this matter and participated in both the formal and informal settlement discussions. The EPLI Policy covering this matter has a $2 million self-insured retention. Because the Company believes that it was likely to expend the balance of its self-insured retention in settlement of this litigation or otherwise, it accrued $1.8 million in the fourth quarter of 2012, an amount that is immaterial to the Company's consolidated financial statements as a whole.

At this time, although probable, it is not certain that the court will approve the settlement. If the court does not approve the settlement and the case proceeds, it is not possible to predict whether Marcum ultimately will be permitted to proceed as a class action under the FCRA, and no assurances can be given that the Company will 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 asserted by the plaintiffs.

In September 2011, the Chicago Regional Office of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission") notified the Company of a cause finding related to the Company's criminal background check policy. The cause finding alleges that Dollar General's criminal background check policy, which excludes from employment individuals with certain criminal convictions for specified periods, has a disparate impact on African-American candidates and employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII").

The Company and the EEOC engaged in the statutorily required conciliation process, and despite the Company's good faith efforts to resolve the matter, the Commission notified the Company on July 26, 2012 of its view that conciliation had failed.

On June 11, 2013, the EEOC filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Equal Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC d/b/a Dollar General (Case No. 1:13-cv-04307) in which the Commission alleges that the Company's criminal background check policy has a disparate impact on "Black Applicants" in violation of Title VII and seeks to recover monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of "Black Applicants." The Company filed its Answer to the Complaint on August 9, 2013.

On January 29, 2014, the court entered an order, which, among other things, bifurcates the issues of liability and damages during discovery and at trial. Under this order, fact discovery relating to liability is to be completed by September 15, 2014. A status conference is scheduled for June 17, 2014.

The Company believes that its criminal background check process is both lawful and necessary to a safe environment for its employees and customers and the protection of its assets and shareholders' investments. The Company also does not believe that this matter is amenable to class or similar treatment. However, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether the action will ultimately be permitted to proceed as a class or in a similar fashion or the size of any putative class. Likewise, at this time, it is not possible to estimate the value of the claims asserted, and, therefore, the Company cannot estimate the potential exposure or range of potential loss. If the matter were to proceed successfully as a class or similar action or the Company is unsuccessful in its defense efforts as to the merits of the action, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements as a whole.

On May 23, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Juan Varela v. Dolgen California and Does 1 through 50 (Case No. RIC 1306158) ("Varela") was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside in which the plaintiff alleges that he and other "key carriers" were not provided with meal and rest periods in violation of California law and seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, injunctive relief, consequential damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs. The Varela plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of California "key carriers" as to these claims. The Varela plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair business practices and seeks to proceed under California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

The Company removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 5:13-cv-01172VAP-SP) on July 1, 2013, and filed its Answer to the Complaint on July 1, 2013. On July 30, 2013, the plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court. The Company's response to that motion was filed on August 19, 2013.

On September 13, 2013, the court granted plaintiff's motion and remanded the case. The Company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 23, 2013. The Petition for Permission to Appeal is pending.

A status conference has been scheduled by the Superior Court for July 23, 2014. The parties have agreed to informally stay discovery pending a decision by the Ninth Circuit on the Petition for Permission to Appeal.

Similarly, on June 6, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Victoria Lee Dinger Main v. Dolgen California, LLC and Does 1 through 100 (Case No. 34-2013-00146129) ("Main") was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento. The Main plaintiff alleges that she and other "key carriers" were not provided with meal and rest periods, accurate wage statements and appropriate pay upon termination in violation of California wage and hour laws and seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs. The Main plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of California "key carriers" as to these claims. The Main plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair business practices and seeks to proceed under the PAGA.

The Company removed this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Case No. 2:13-cv-01637-MCE-KJN) on August 7, 2013, and filed its Answer to the Complaint on August 6, 2013. On August 29, 2013, the plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court. The Company's response to that motion was filed on September 19, 2013. On October 28, 2013, the court granted plaintiff's motion and remanded the case. The Company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November 7, 2013. The plaintiff filed its opposition brief on November 15, 2013. The Petition remains pending.

On February 6, 2014, the Superior Court referred the matter to the Trial Setting Process and ordered the parties to confer and agree upon a date for trial and a mandatory settlement conference. The parties are to advise the Court of the date agreed upon for a trial and settlement conference no later than January 30, 2015. If the parties are unable to agree upon a date by such time, the Court will assign the next available dates.

The Company believes that its policies and practices comply with California law and that the Varela and Main actions are not appropriate for class or similar treatment. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions; however, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether the Varela or Main action ultimately will be permitted to proceed as a class, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of either 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 the Varela and Main actions. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in either matter; however, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of either action could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements as a whole.

On May 31, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Judith Wass v. Dolgen Corp, LLC (Case No. 13PO-CC00039) ("Wass") was filed in the Circuit Court of Polk County, Missouri. The Wass plaintiff seeks to proceed collectively on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated non-exempt store employees who allegedly were not properly paid for certain breaks in violation of the FLSA. The Wass plaintiff seeks back wages (including overtime), injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 11, 2013, the Company removed this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Case No. 6:113-cv-03267-JFM). The Company filed its Answer on July 18, 2013. The plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is due to be filed on or before March 28, 2014. The Company's response is due to be filed on or before April 25, 2014.

Similarly, on July 2, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Rachel Buttry and Jennifer Peters v. Dollar General Corp. (Case no. 3:13-cv-00652) ("Buttry") was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The Buttry plaintiffs seek to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under the FLSA and as a statewide class under Tennessee law on behalf of non-exempt store employees who allegedly were not properly paid for certain breaks. The Buttry plaintiffs seek back wages (including overtime), injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages, compensatory and economic damages, "consequential" and "incidental" damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company filed its Answer on August 7, 2013. The plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional certification of their FLSA on December 5, 2013. The Company filed its response to that motion on February 3, 2014. The court set a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of their FLSA claims on April 2, 2014.

The plaintiffs' motion for certification of their statewide claims is due to be filed on or before September 22, 2014. The court has set this matter for trial on February 17, 2015.

The Company believes that its wage and hour policies and practices comply with both the FLSA and state law, including Tennessee law, and that the Wass and Buttry actions are not appropriate for collective or class treatment. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions; however, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether the Wass or Buttry action ultimately will be permitted to proceed collectively or as a class, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of these actions 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 the Wass and Buttry actions. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in these matters; however, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of one or more of these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements as a whole.

On September 16, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Lisa Kocmich v. DolgenCorp, LLC (Case No. 2013CA005841AX) ("Kocmich") was filed in the Circuit Court of Manatee County, Florida. The Kocmich plaintiff seeks to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under the FLSA on behalf of all similarly situated non-exempt store employees who allegedly were not paid for all hours worked (including overtime) as required by the FLSA. The Kocmich plaintiff seeks back wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company removed this matter to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 8:13-cv-02705-RAL-MAP) on October 21, 2013. The Company filed its Answer on November 4, 2013.

The parties have reached an agreement to resolve the Kocmich matter for an amount that is immaterial to the Company's consolidated 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 sought damages and an injunction limiting the sale of food and other items in those stores. Although plaintiffs did not make a demand for any specific amount of damages, documents prepared and produced by plaintiffs during discovery suggested that plaintiffs would seek as much as $47 million although the court limited their ability to prove such damages. The case was consolidated with similar cases against Big Lots and Dollar Tree. The court issued an order on August 10, 2012 in which it (i) dismissed all claims for damages, (ii) dismissed claims for injunctive relief for all but four stores, and (iii) directed the Company to report to the court on its compliance with restrictive covenants at the four stores for which it did not dismiss the claims for injunctive relief. The Company believes that compliance with the August 2012 ruling will have no material adverse impact on the Company or its consolidated financial statements.

On August 28, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Docket No. 12-14527-B). Oral argument was conducted on January 16, 2014, and the appellate court rendered its decision on March 5, 2014, affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court's decision. Specifically, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claim for monetary damages but reversed the trial court's decision denying injunctive relief as to thirteen additional stores and remanded for further proceedings. At this time, the Company is unable to predict whether the trial court will enter an injunction as to any of the additional stores at issue; however, the Company does not believe that such an injunction, even if entered as to each remaining additional store at issue, would have a material adverse effect on the Company or its consolidated financial statements as a whole.

The Company also is unable to predict whether the plaintiffs will seek further appellate review of the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim for damages. If plaintiffs were to obtain further appellate review, and the Company is unsuccessful in its defense of such appeal, the outcome could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements as a whole.

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.