XML 30 R11.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Commitments and contingencies

3 Months Ended

Apr. 29, 2011

8. Commitments and contingencies

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, and approximately 3,860 individuals opted into the lawsuit. In September 2010, the court entered a scheduling order that governs, among other things, deadlines for fact discovery (September 30, 2011) and the Company’s anticipated decertification motion (August 15, 2011). The court’s scheduling order establishes a trial date of February 12, 2012.

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 intends to vigorously defend 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 seek 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. To date, the plaintiffs have not appealed. If the case proceeds only as to the named plaintiffs, 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 have 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 parties are awaiting a ruling. 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 has 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 submitted to and 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 approved, the Company expects to implement the new pay policies and practices no later than April 2012. The Company expects the proposed settlement to be filed with the court in June of 2011 and anticipates the court’s ruling sometime during the summer of 2011. Because it deems settlement probable and estimable, the Company has appropriately accrued for the net settlement as well as for certain additional anticipated fees related thereto during the 13-week period ended April 29, 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) 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). The Walker complaint was filed on September 16, 2010, and although it adds approximately eight additional plaintiffs, it adds no substantive allegations beyond those alleged in the Gross complaint. The Company filed a motion to transfer the case back to the Southern District of Mississippi and a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over two corporate defendants and for failure to state a claim as to Dollar General Corporation. The motion to transfer remains pending, but the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims against Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp of Texas, Inc., another corporate defendant. Although the court stayed the matter pending resolution of the Company’s motion to dismiss, that stay has not been lifted. To date, no other individuals have opted into the Walker matter, and the plaintiffs have not asked the court to certify any class.

At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the courts will permit the Walker action to proceed collectively. The Company does not believe that Walker is appropriate for collective treatment and believes that its wage and hour policies and practices comply with both federal and state law. Although the Company plans to vigorously defend Walker, no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in the defense 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 raised. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss; however if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of this action could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial statements as a whole.

On August 26, 2010, a lawsuit containing allegations substantially similar to those raised in the Walker matter was filed by a single plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Brenda McCown v. Dollar General Corporation, Case No. 210-297 (WOB)). On May 11, 2011, the Company agreed to resolve the matter for an amount that is not material to its 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 appropriately accrued the settlement amount along with additional expected fees and costs related thereto in the 13-week period ended April 29, 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.