Commitments and contingencies	3 Months Ended
Apr. 29, 2016
Commitments and contingencies
Commitments and contingencies	6.Commitments and contingencies Legal proceedings 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 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 November 16, 2016. In response to various discovery motions, the court has entered orders requiring the Company’s production of documents, information and electronic data for the period 2004 to present. Currently pending is the EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment relating to two of the Company’s defenses challenging the sufficiency of the Commission’s conciliation efforts and the scope of its investigation. The Company has opposed this motion as prematurely-filed in light of the status of various discovery issues. 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 no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of this action on the merits or otherwise. For these reasons, 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 (“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 (the “PAGA”). 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 answers to both the complaint and amended complaint. A court-ordered mediation held in November 2015 was unsuccessful. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is due to be filed on or before October 17, 2016. The Company’s response is due to be filed on or before December 9, 2016. Plaintiffs’ reply brief is due to be filed on January 20, 2017. On January 15, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Kendra Pleasant v. Dollar General Corporation, Dolgen California, LLC, and Does 1 through 50 (“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 stay all proceedings in the Pleasant matter pending an issuance of a final judgment in the Varela matter. The court granted the Company’s demurrer and stayed proceedings until resolution of the Varela matter. Subsequently, the Pleasant plaintiff moved to transfer this matter to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside where the Varela matter is pending, which the Company opposed. The court denied the Pleasant plaintiff’s motion to transfer. On February 20, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Julie Sullivan v. Dolgen California and Does 1 through 100 (“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 and filed its answer on the same date. On April 29, 2015, the Sullivan plaintiff amended her complaint to add a claim under the PAGA. The Company’s response to the amended complaint was filed on May 14, 2015. The plaintiff’s motion for class certification was filed on March 12, 2016. Plaintiff has since conceded that her allegation that she and other Dollar General Market store managers in the State of California are improperly classified as exempt employees is not amenable to class certification. Plaintiff continues to pursue her individual misclassification claim and class certification of her wage statement claim. Also currently pending is the Company’s motion for summary judgment as to all of Plaintiff’s claims. No ruling has been issued on either plaintiff’s class certification motion or the Company’s motion for summary judgment. The matter has been set for trial on October 31, 2016. A mediation conducted in early March 2016 was unsuccessful. 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. In December 2015, the Company was notified of seven lawsuits in which the plaintiffs allege violation of state consumer protection laws relating to the labeling, marketing and sale of Dollar General private-label motor oil. Six of these lawsuits were filed in various federal district courts of the United States: Bradford Barfoot and Leonard Karpeichik v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Southern District of Florida on December 18, 2015) (“Barfoot”); Milton M. Cooke, Jr. v. Dollar General Corporation (filed in the Southern District of Texas on December 21, 2015) (“Cooke”); William Flinn v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court for New Jersey on December 17, 2015) (“Flinn”); John J. McCormick, III v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court of Maryland on December 23, 2015) (“McCormick”); David Sanchez v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Central District of California on December 17, 2015) (“Sanchez”); and Will Sisemore v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma on December 21, 2015) (“Sisemore”). The seventh matter, Chuck Hill v. Dolgencorp, LLC (“Hill”), was filed in Orleans County Superior Court in Vermont on December 22, 2015, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the District of Vermont on February 8, 2016. In February, March and May 2016, the Company was notified of fourteen additional lawsuits alleging similar claims concerning Dollar General private-label motor oil. All of these lawsuits were filed in various federal district courts of the United States: Allen Brown v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the District of Colorado on February 10, 2016) (“Brown”); Miriam Fruhling v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Southern District of Ohio on February 10, 2016) (“Fruhling”); John Foppe v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky on February 10, 2016) (“Foppe”); Kevin Gadson v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Southern District of New York on February 8, 2016) (“Gadson”); Bruce Gooel v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Eastern District of Michigan on February 8, 2016) (“Gooel”); Janine Harvey v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court for Nebraska on February 10, 2016) (“Harvey”); Nicholas Meyer v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the District of Kansas on February 9, 2016) (“Meyer”); Robert Oren v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Western District of Missouri on February 8, 2016) (“Oren”); Scott Sheehy v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the District Court for Minnesota on February 9, 2016) (“Sheehy”); Gerardo Solis v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the Northern District of Illinois on February 12, 2016) (“Solis”); Roberto Vega v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Central District of California on February 8, 2016) (“Vega”); Matthew Wait v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC, (filed in the Western District of Arkansas on February 16, 2016) (“Wait”); James Taschner v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Eastern District of Missouri on March 15, 2016) (“Taschner”); and Jason Wood and Roger Barrows v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Northern District of New York on May 9, 2016) (“Wood”). The plaintiffs in the Taschner, Vega and Sanchez matters seek to proceed on a nationwide and statewide class basis, while the plaintiffs in the other matters seek to proceed only on a statewide class basis. Each plaintiff seeks, for himself or herself and the putative class he or she seeks to represent, some or all of the following relief: compensatory damages, injunctive relief prohibiting the sale of the products at issue and requiring the dissemination of corrective advertising, certain statutory damages (including treble damages), punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. On February 1, 2016, the Sanchez plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his complaint without prejudice. The Company has filed motions to dismiss and motions to strike class allegations in the following matters: Barfoot; Brown; Cooke; Flinn; Foppe; Fruhling; Gooel; Hill; McCormick; Meyer; Oren; Sheehy; Sisemore; Solis; Wait; and Vega. The Company’s responsive pleading in the Wood matter is due on July 9, 2016. On March 7, 2016, the Company filed a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) requesting that all cases be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, or, in the alternative to the Western District of Missouri or the Southern District of Florida, for consolidated pretrial proceedings (“Motion to Transfer”). The hearing on the Company’s Motion to Transfer is scheduled for May 26, 2016. The following cases have been stayed pending the JPML’s decision on the Motion to Transfer: Barfoot; Foppe; Fruhling; Gadsen; Harvey; Meyer; and Taschner. The courts in the Sheehy and Solis matters have stayed discovery only pending a transfer decision by the JPML. The Company believes that the labeling, marketing and sale of its private-label motor oil complies with applicable federal and state requirements and is not misleading. The Company further believes that these matters 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 any of these cases will be permitted to proceed as a class or the size of any putative class. Likewise, at this time, it is not possible to estimate the value of the claims asserted, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of these actions on the merits or otherwise. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate the 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. 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.

6.Commitments and contingencies

Legal proceedings

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 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 November 16, 2016. In response to various discovery motions, the court has entered orders requiring the Company’s production of documents, information and electronic data for the period 2004 to present.

Currently pending is the EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment relating to two of the Company’s defenses challenging the sufficiency of the Commission’s conciliation efforts and the scope of its investigation. The Company has opposed this motion as prematurely-filed in light of the status of various discovery issues.

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 no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of this action on the merits or otherwise. For these reasons, 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 (“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 (the “PAGA”).

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 answers to both the complaint and amended complaint. A court-ordered mediation held in November 2015 was unsuccessful.

Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is due to be filed on or before October 17, 2016. The Company’s response is due to be filed on or before December 9, 2016. Plaintiffs’ reply brief is due to be filed on January 20, 2017.

On January 15, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Kendra Pleasant v. Dollar General Corporation, Dolgen California, LLC, and Does 1 through 50 (“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 stay all proceedings in the Pleasant matter pending an issuance of a final judgment in the Varela matter. The court granted the Company’s demurrer and stayed proceedings until resolution of the Varela matter. Subsequently, the Pleasant plaintiff moved to transfer this matter to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside where the Varela matter is pending, which the Company opposed. The court denied the Pleasant plaintiff’s motion to transfer.

On February 20, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Julie Sullivan v. Dolgen California and Does 1 through 100 (“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 and filed its answer on the same date. On April 29, 2015, the Sullivan plaintiff amended her complaint to add a claim under the PAGA. The Company’s response to the amended complaint was filed on May 14, 2015.

The plaintiff’s motion for class certification was filed on March 12, 2016. Plaintiff has since conceded that her allegation that she and other Dollar General Market store managers in the State of California are improperly classified as exempt employees is not amenable to class certification. Plaintiff continues to pursue her individual misclassification claim and class certification of her wage statement claim.

Also currently pending is the Company’s motion for summary judgment as to all of Plaintiff’s claims.

No ruling has been issued on either plaintiff’s class certification motion or the Company’s motion for summary judgment. The matter has been set for trial on October 31, 2016. A mediation conducted in early March 2016 was unsuccessful.

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.

In December 2015, the Company was notified of seven lawsuits in which the plaintiffs allege violation of state consumer protection laws relating to the labeling, marketing and sale of Dollar General private-label motor oil. Six of these lawsuits were filed in various federal district courts of the United States: Bradford Barfoot and Leonard Karpeichik v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Southern District of Florida on December 18, 2015) (“Barfoot”); Milton M. Cooke, Jr. v. Dollar General Corporation (filed in the Southern District of Texas on December 21, 2015) (“Cooke”); William Flinn v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court for New Jersey on December 17, 2015) (“Flinn”); John J. McCormick, III v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court of Maryland on December 23, 2015) (“McCormick”); David Sanchez v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Central District of California on December 17, 2015) (“Sanchez”); and Will Sisemore v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma on December 21, 2015) (“Sisemore”).

The seventh matter, Chuck Hill v. Dolgencorp, LLC (“Hill”), was filed in Orleans County Superior Court in Vermont on December 22, 2015, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the District of Vermont on February 8, 2016.

In February, March and May 2016, the Company was notified of fourteen additional lawsuits alleging similar claims concerning Dollar General private-label motor oil. All of these lawsuits were filed in various federal district courts of the United States: Allen Brown v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the District of Colorado on February 10, 2016) (“Brown”); Miriam Fruhling v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Southern District of Ohio on February 10, 2016) (“Fruhling”); John Foppe v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky on February 10, 2016) (“Foppe”); Kevin Gadson v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Southern District of New York on February 8, 2016) (“Gadson”); Bruce Gooel v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Eastern District of Michigan on February 8, 2016) (“Gooel”); Janine Harvey v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court for Nebraska on February 10, 2016) (“Harvey”); Nicholas Meyer v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the District of Kansas on February 9, 2016) (“Meyer”); Robert Oren v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Western District of Missouri on February 8, 2016) (“Oren”); Scott Sheehy v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the District Court for Minnesota on February 9, 2016) (“Sheehy”); Gerardo Solis v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the Northern District of Illinois on February 12, 2016) (“Solis”); Roberto Vega v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Central District of California on February 8, 2016) (“Vega”); Matthew Wait v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC, (filed in the Western District of Arkansas on February 16, 2016) (“Wait”); James Taschner v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Eastern District of Missouri on March 15, 2016) (“Taschner”); and Jason Wood and Roger Barrows v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Northern District of New York on May 9, 2016) (“Wood”).

The plaintiffs in the Taschner, Vega and Sanchez matters seek to proceed on a nationwide and statewide class basis, while the plaintiffs in the other matters seek to proceed only on a statewide class basis. Each plaintiff seeks, for himself or herself and the putative class he or she seeks to represent, some or all of the following relief: compensatory damages, injunctive relief prohibiting the sale of the products at issue and requiring the dissemination of corrective advertising, certain statutory damages (including treble damages), punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

On February 1, 2016, the Sanchez plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his complaint without prejudice.

The Company has filed motions to dismiss and motions to strike class allegations in the following matters: Barfoot; Brown; Cooke; Flinn; Foppe; Fruhling; Gooel; Hill; McCormick; Meyer; Oren; Sheehy; Sisemore; Solis; Wait; and Vega. The Company’s responsive pleading in the Wood matter is due on July 9, 2016.

On March 7, 2016, the Company filed a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) requesting that all cases be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, or, in the alternative to the Western District of Missouri or the Southern District of Florida, for consolidated pretrial proceedings (“Motion to Transfer”). The hearing on the Company’s Motion to Transfer is scheduled for May 26, 2016.

The following cases have been stayed pending the JPML’s decision on the Motion to Transfer: Barfoot; Foppe; Fruhling; Gadsen; Harvey; Meyer; and Taschner. The courts in the Sheehy and Solis matters have stayed discovery only pending a transfer decision by the JPML.

The Company believes that the labeling, marketing and sale of its private-label motor oil complies with applicable federal and state requirements and is not misleading. The Company further believes that these matters 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 any of these cases will be permitted to proceed as a class or the size of any putative class. Likewise, at this time, it is not possible to estimate the value of the claims asserted, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of these actions on the merits or otherwise. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate the 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.

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.