Commitments and contingencies	3 Months Ended
May 01, 2015
Commitments and contingencies
Commitments and contingencies	7.Commitments and contingencies Legal proceedings On September 8, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Sally Ann Carpenter v. Dolgencorp, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Case No. 2:14-cv-25500) (“Carpenter”). In the complaint, the Carpenter plaintiff seeks to proceed on a collective basis under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) on behalf of herself and other former and current store managers in the state of West Virginia who were allegedly improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the FLSA and to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company filed its answer to the complaint on September 30, 2014. The plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of her FLSA claims was due to be filed on or before April 24, 2015. The Carpenter plaintiff did not seek certification of her FLSA claims. The parties have reached a preliminary agreement, which must be submitted to and approved by the court, to resolve this matter for an amount not material 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. However, even if the court does not approve the settlement on its current terms, the Company does not expect the resolution of the Carpenter matter to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole. On October 31, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Ronda Hood v. Dollar General Corporation was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Case No. 2:14-cv-02512-JTM-DEK) (“Hood”). The Hood plaintiff seeks to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under the FLSA on behalf of herself and other similarly situated store managers who allegedly were improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the FLSA. The Hood plaintiff seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Hood plaintiff also asserts individual causes of action for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Louisiana Human Rights Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, and negligent infliction of emotional distress and seeks damages for those claims including back wages, compensatory damages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, reinstatement and/or front pay, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company filed its answer to the complaint on January 16, 2015. The plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of her FLSA claims is due to be filed on or before June 23, 2015, and the Company’s response to that motion is due to be filed on or before June 30, 2015. Trial is set for November 9, 2015. The Company believes that its store managers are and have been properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and that the Hood action is not appropriate for collective action treatment. The Company has obtained summary judgment in some, although not all, of its individual or single-plaintiff store manager exemption cases in which it has filed such a motion. At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the Hood matter 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 was to proceed. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in this matter; however, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of the Hood matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole. 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 the Company’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. The Court has bifurcated the issues of liability and damages for purposes of discovery and trial. Fact discovery related to liability is to be completed on or before February 16, 2016. On July 29, 2014 and May 5, 2015, the court entered orders requiring the Company to produce certain documents, information, and electronic data for the period 2004 to present. 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, the resolution of this matter 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 the original complaint, the Varela 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 and 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 filed its Answer to the Complaint on July 1, 2013. On November 4, 2014, the Varela plaintiff filed an amended complaint to add Victoria Lee Dinger Main as a named plaintiff and to add putative class claims on behalf of “key carriers” for alleged inaccurate wage statements and failure to provide appropriate pay upon termination in violation of California law. The Company filed its answer to the amended complaint on December 23, 2014. The parties have been ordered to engage in informal discovery and mediation, and mediation is scheduled for September 2, 2015. On January 15, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Kendra Pleasant v. Dollar General Corporation, Dolgen California, LLC, and Does 1 through 50 (Case No. CIVDS1500651) (“Pleasant”) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino in which the plaintiff seeks to proceed under the PAGA for various alleged violations of California’s Labor Code. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that she and other similarly situated non-exempt California store-level employees were not paid for all time worked, provided meal and rest breaks, reimbursed for necessary work related expenses, and provided with accurate wage statements and seeks to recover unpaid wages, civil and statutory penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 12, 2015, the Company filed a demurrer asking the court to abate all proceedings in the Pleasant matter pending an issuance of a final judgment in the Varela matter. A hearing is scheduled for May 29, 2015. On February 20, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Julie Sullivan v. Dolgen California and Does 1 through 100 (Case No. RG 15759417) (“Sullivan”) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda in which the plaintiff alleges that she and other similarly situated Dollar General Market store managers in the State of California were improperly classified as exempt employees and were not provided with meal and rest breaks and accurate wage statements in violation of California law. The Sullivan plaintiff also alleges that she and other California store employees were not provided with printed wage statements, purportedly in violation of California law. The plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime pay, civil and statutory penalties, interest, injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 8, 2015, the Company removed this matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:15-cv-01617-JD) and filed its answer on the same date. On April 29, 2015, the Sullivan plaintiff amended her complaint to add a claim under PAGA. The Company’s response to the amended complaint was filed on May 14, 2015. The Company believes that its policies and practices comply with California law and that the Varela, Pleasant, and Sullivan 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, Pleasant, or Sullivan 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 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 Varela, Pleasant, or Sullivan action. 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 any of these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole. On September 8, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Joyce Riley v. Dolgencorp, LLC (Case No. 2:14-cv-25505) (“Riley”) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. In the complaint, the Riley plaintiff seeks to proceed on a collective basis under the FLSA on behalf of all similarly situated non-exempt store employees in the state of West Virginia who allegedly were not paid for certain breaks and seeks back wages (including overtime), liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company filed its answer to the complaint on September 30, 2014. The plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of her FLSA claims was due to be filed on or before May 8, 2015. The Riley plaintiff did not seek certification of her FLSA claims. The parties have reached a preliminary agreement, which must be submitted to and approved by the court, to resolve this matter for an amount not material 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. However, even if the court does not approve the settlement on its current terms, the Company does not expect the resolution of the Riley matter to have a material adverse effect on 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. The plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction limiting the sale of food and other items in those stores. Although the 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 as noted below, 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 Dollar General 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 effect on the Company or its consolidated financial statements. On August 28, 2012, the Winn-Dixie 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 the 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. On November 19, 2014, the district court issued an order (i) permitting the parties to conduct additional discovery regarding the scope of the restrictive covenants at issue in light of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, and (ii) scheduling a bench trial to resolve any outstanding issues on the court’s April 20, 2015 docket. On February 10, 2015, Winn-Dixie filed a motion for summary judgment, and the Company filed a motion for summary judgment regarding the stores located outside of Florida. On April 17, 2015, the court entered an order (i) granting the Company’s motion for summary judgment regarding stores at issue in the case that are located outside of Florida, (ii) reaffirming its prior holding denying injunctive relief with respect to the one Dollar General store in Florida that remains at issue, and (iii) postponing trial to an undetermined date. Based on several factors, including the various district and appellate court rulings in this matter to date, the Company does not believe that the outcome of this litigation is likely to have a material adverse effect on its 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 consolidated 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.

7.Commitments and contingencies

Legal proceedings

On September 8, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Sally Ann Carpenter v. Dolgencorp, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Case No. 2:14-cv-25500) (“Carpenter”). In the complaint, the Carpenter plaintiff seeks to proceed on a collective basis under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) on behalf of herself and other former and current store managers in the state of West Virginia who were allegedly improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the FLSA and to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Company filed its answer to the complaint on September 30, 2014. The plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of her FLSA claims was due to be filed on or before April 24, 2015.

The Carpenter plaintiff did not seek certification of her FLSA claims. The parties have reached a preliminary agreement, which must be submitted to and approved by the court, to resolve this matter for an amount not material 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. However, even if the court does not approve the settlement on its current terms, the Company does not expect the resolution of the Carpenter matter to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.

On October 31, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Ronda Hood v. Dollar General Corporation was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Case No. 2:14-cv-02512-JTM-DEK) (“Hood”). The Hood plaintiff seeks to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under the FLSA on behalf of herself and other similarly situated store managers who allegedly were improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the FLSA. The Hood plaintiff seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Hood plaintiff also asserts individual causes of action for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Louisiana Human Rights Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, and negligent infliction of emotional distress and seeks damages for those claims including back wages, compensatory damages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, reinstatement and/or front pay, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Company filed its answer to the complaint on January 16, 2015. The plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of her FLSA claims is due to be filed on or before June 23, 2015, and the Company’s response to that motion is due to be filed on or before June 30, 2015. Trial is set for November 9, 2015.

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

At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the Hood matter 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 was to proceed. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in this matter; however, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of the Hood matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.

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 the Company’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.

The Court has bifurcated the issues of liability and damages for purposes of discovery and trial. Fact discovery related to liability is to be completed on or before February 16, 2016.

On July 29, 2014 and May 5, 2015, the court entered orders requiring the Company to produce certain documents, information, and electronic data for the period 2004 to present.

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, the resolution of this matter 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 the original complaint, the Varela 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 and 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 filed its Answer to the Complaint on July 1, 2013.

On November 4, 2014, the Varela plaintiff filed an amended complaint to add Victoria Lee Dinger Main as a named plaintiff and to add putative class claims on behalf of “key carriers” for alleged inaccurate wage statements and failure to provide appropriate pay upon termination in violation of California law. The Company filed its answer to the amended complaint on December 23, 2014.

The parties have been ordered to engage in informal discovery and mediation, and mediation is scheduled for September 2, 2015.

On January 15, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Kendra Pleasant v. Dollar General Corporation, Dolgen California, LLC, and Does 1 through 50 (Case No. CIVDS1500651) (“Pleasant”) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino in which the plaintiff seeks to proceed under the PAGA for various alleged violations of California’s Labor Code. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that she and other similarly situated non-exempt California store-level employees were not paid for all time worked, provided meal and rest breaks, reimbursed for necessary work related expenses, and provided with accurate wage statements and seeks to recover unpaid wages, civil and statutory penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 12, 2015, the Company filed a demurrer asking the court to abate all proceedings in the Pleasant matter pending an issuance of a final judgment in the Varela matter. A hearing is scheduled for May 29, 2015.

On February 20, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Julie Sullivan v. Dolgen California and Does 1 through 100 (Case No. RG 15759417) (“Sullivan”) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda in which the plaintiff alleges that she and other similarly situated Dollar General Market store managers in the State of California were improperly classified as exempt employees and were not provided with meal and rest breaks and accurate wage statements in violation of California law. The Sullivan plaintiff also alleges that she and other California store employees were not provided with printed wage statements, purportedly in violation of California law. The plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime pay, civil and statutory penalties, interest, injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On April 8, 2015, the Company removed this matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:15-cv-01617-JD) and filed its answer on the same date. On April 29, 2015, the Sullivan plaintiff amended her complaint to add a claim under PAGA. The Company’s response to the amended complaint was filed on May 14, 2015.

The Company believes that its policies and practices comply with California law and that the Varela, Pleasant, and Sullivan 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, Pleasant, or Sullivan 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 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 Varela, Pleasant, or Sullivan action. 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 any of these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.

On September 8, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Joyce Riley v. Dolgencorp, LLC (Case No. 2:14-cv-25505) (“Riley”) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. In the complaint, the Riley plaintiff seeks to proceed on a collective basis under the FLSA on behalf of all similarly situated non-exempt store employees in the state of West Virginia who allegedly were not paid for certain breaks and seeks back wages (including overtime), liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Company filed its answer to the complaint on September 30, 2014. The plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of her FLSA claims was due to be filed on or before May 8, 2015.

The Riley plaintiff did not seek certification of her FLSA claims. The parties have reached a preliminary agreement, which must be submitted to and approved by the court, to resolve this matter for an amount not material 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. However, even if the court does not approve the settlement on its current terms, the Company does not expect the resolution of the Riley matter to have a material adverse effect on 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. The plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction limiting the sale of food and other items in those stores. Although the 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 as noted below, 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 Dollar General 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 effect on the Company or its consolidated financial statements.

On August 28, 2012, the Winn-Dixie 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 the 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. On November 19, 2014, the district court issued an order (i) permitting the parties to conduct additional discovery regarding the scope of the restrictive covenants at issue in light of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, and (ii) scheduling a bench trial to resolve any outstanding issues on the court’s April 20, 2015 docket. On February 10, 2015, Winn-Dixie filed a motion for summary judgment, and the Company filed a motion for summary judgment regarding the stores located outside of Florida. On April 17, 2015, the court entered an order (i) granting the Company’s motion for summary judgment regarding stores at issue in the case that are located outside of Florida, (ii) reaffirming its prior holding denying injunctive relief with respect to the one Dollar General store in Florida that remains at issue, and (iii) postponing trial to an undetermined date.

Based on several factors, including the various district and appellate court rulings in this matter to date, the Company does not believe that the outcome of this litigation is likely to have a material adverse effect on its 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 consolidated 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.