Commitments and contingencies	3 Months Ended
May 05, 2017
Commitments and contingencies
Commitments and contingencies	6.Commitments and contingencies Legal proceedings From time to time, the Company is a party to various legal matters involving claims incidental to the conduct of its business, including actions by employees, consumers, suppliers, government agencies, or others. The Company has recorded accruals with respect to these matters, where appropriate, which are reflected in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. For some matters, a liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated and therefore an accrual has not been made. Except as described below, the Company believes, based upon information currently available, that such matters, 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 and other legal matters involve 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 matters, 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. Employment Litigation The Company is defending litigation in California (the “California Wage/Hour Litigation”) in which the plaintiffs allege that they and a putative statewide class of other “key carriers” were not provided with meal and rest periods and were provided inaccurate wage statements and termination pay in violation of California law, including California’s Private Attorney General Act (the “PAGA”). The plaintiffs in the California Wage/Hour Litigation seek to recover alleged unpaid wages, injunctive relief, consequential damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company is vigorously defending the California Wage/Hour Litigation and believes that its policies and practices comply with California law and that these actions are not appropriate for class or similar treatment. At this time, however, it is not possible to predict whether any of the actions comprising the California Wage/Hour Litigation 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 these actions and consequently is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in these matters. If the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole. Consumer/Product Litigation In December 2015 the Company was first notified of several 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. Each of these lawsuits, as well as additional, similar lawsuits filed after December 2015, was filed in, or removed to, various federal district courts of the United States (collectively “the Motor Oil Lawsuits”). On June 2, 2016, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company’s motion to centralize the Motor Oil Lawsuits in a matter styled In re Dollar General Corp. Motor Oil Litigation, Case MDL No. 2709, before the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (“Motor Oil MDL”). Subsequently, the plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL filed a consolidated amended complaint, in which they seek to certify two nationwide classes and multiple statewide sub-classes and for each putative class member some or all of the following relief: compensatory damages, injunctive relief, statutory damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The Company’s motion to dismiss the allegations raised in the consolidated amended complaint remains pending. To the extent additional consumer lawsuits alleging violation of laws relating to the labeling, marketing and sale of Dollar General private-label motor oil have been or will be filed, the Company expects that such lawsuits will be transferred to the Motor Oil MDL. In May 2017, the Company received a Notice of Proposed Action from the Office of the New Mexico Attorney General which alleges that the Company’s labeling, marketing and sale of Dollar General private-label motor oil violated New Mexico law (the “New Mexico Motor Oil Matter”). The Company’s response to the Notice was submitted on May 26, 2017. The State has informed the Company that it is represented in connection with this matter by counsel for the plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL. On May 25, 2017, the Company filed an action in New Mexico federal court in which the Company seeks a declaratory judgment that the Attorney General of the State of New Mexico is prohibited by, among other things, the United States Constitution, from pursuing the New Mexico Motor Oil Matter and an order enjoining the Attorney General from pursuing such an action. (Dollar General Corporation v. Hector H. Balderas, D.N.M., Case No. 1:17-cv-00588). The Company believes that the labeling, marketing and sale of its private-label motor oil comply with applicable federal and state requirements and are not misleading. The Company further believes that these matters are not appropriate for class or similar treatment. The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters; however, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether these matters will be permitted to proceed as a class or in a similar fashion, whether on a state-wide or nationwide basis, or the size of any putative class or classes. 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 matters 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 the Motor Oil MDL or the New Mexico Motor Oil Matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole. Shareholder Litigation The Company is defending litigation filed in January and February 2017 in which the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of shareholders, allege that between March 10, 2016 and December 1, 2016, the Company and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the impact to sales of changes to certain federal programs that provide supplemental nutritional assistance to individuals. (Iron Workers Local Union No. 405 Annuity Fund v. Dollar General Corporation, et al., M.D. Tenn. Case No. 3:17-cv-00063; Julia Askins v. Dollar General Corporation, et al., M.D. Tenn., Case No. 3:17-cv-00276; Bruce Velan v. Dollar General Corporation, et al., M.D. Tenn., Case No. 3:17-cv-00275)(collectively “the Shareholder Litigation”). The plaintiffs in the Shareholder Litigation seek the following relief: compensatory damages, unspecified equitable relief, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees and expenses. The court has consolidated the cases, appointed a lead plaintiff and entered a preliminary scheduling order. The Company believes that the statements at issue in the Shareholder Litigation complied with the federal securities laws and intends to vigorously defend this action. At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the Shareholder Litigation 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 in this action, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss in this matter; however if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of the Shareholder Litigation could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole. On April 10, 2017, a shareholder derivative action was filed in which the plaintiff asserts, purportedly on behalf of the Company, claims against the Company’s board of directors and certain of its officers for alleged breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment and violation of federal securities laws based upon factual allegations substantially similar to those in the Shareholder Litigation. (Robert Anderson v. Todd Vasos, et al., M.D. Tenn. Case No. 3:17-cv-00693)(“the Derivative Litigation”). The plaintiff in the Derivative Litigation seeks, purportedly on behalf of the Company, the following relief: compensatory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement, and attorneys’ fees and expenses. The court has stayed all proceedings in the Derivative Litigation pending the resolution of the Company’s motion to dismiss, if any, in the Shareholder Litigation. Environmental Matter In February 2014, certain California District Attorneys’ Offices (“California DAs”), representing California’s county environmental authorities, informed the Company that they were investigating the Company’s hazardous waste handling and disposal practices in certain of its California stores and its California distribution center. On September 22, 2016, the California DAs provided a settlement demand to the Company that included a proposed civil penalty and certain injunctive relief. In April 2017, the parties reached an agreement to settle this matter for an amount greater than $100,000 but not material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole, and the settlement has received final approval by the Court.

6.Commitments and contingencies

Legal proceedings

From time to time, the Company is a party to various legal matters involving claims incidental to the conduct of its business, including actions by employees, consumers, suppliers, government agencies, or others. The Company has recorded accruals with respect to these matters, where appropriate, which are reflected in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. For some matters, a liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated and therefore an accrual has not been made.

Except as described below, the Company believes, based upon information currently available, that such matters, 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 and other legal matters involve 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 matters, 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.

Employment Litigation

The Company is defending litigation in California (the “California Wage/Hour Litigation”) in which the plaintiffs allege that they and a putative statewide class of other “key carriers” were not provided with meal and rest periods and were provided inaccurate wage statements and termination pay in violation of California law, including California’s Private Attorney General Act (the “PAGA”). The plaintiffs in the California Wage/Hour Litigation seek to recover alleged unpaid wages, injunctive relief, consequential damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Company is vigorously defending the California Wage/Hour Litigation and believes that its policies and practices comply with California law and that these actions are not appropriate for class or similar treatment. At this time, however, it is not possible to predict whether any of the actions comprising the California Wage/Hour Litigation 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 these actions and consequently is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in these matters. If the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.

Consumer/Product Litigation

In December 2015 the Company was first notified of several 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. Each of these lawsuits, as well as additional, similar lawsuits filed after December 2015, was filed in, or removed to, various federal district courts of the United States (collectively “the Motor Oil Lawsuits”).

On June 2, 2016, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company’s motion to centralize the Motor Oil Lawsuits in a matter styled In re Dollar General Corp. Motor Oil Litigation, Case MDL No. 2709, before the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (“Motor Oil MDL”). Subsequently, the plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL filed a consolidated amended complaint, in which they seek to certify two nationwide classes and multiple statewide sub-classes and for each putative class member some or all of the following relief: compensatory damages, injunctive relief, statutory damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The Company’s motion to dismiss the allegations raised in the consolidated amended complaint remains pending. To the extent additional consumer lawsuits alleging violation of laws relating to the labeling, marketing and sale of Dollar General private-label motor oil have been or will be filed, the Company expects that such lawsuits will be transferred to the Motor Oil MDL.

In May 2017, the Company received a Notice of Proposed Action from the Office of the New Mexico Attorney General which alleges that the Company’s labeling, marketing and sale of Dollar General private-label motor oil violated New Mexico law (the “New Mexico Motor Oil Matter”). The Company’s response to the Notice was submitted on May 26, 2017. The State has informed the Company that it is represented in connection with this matter by counsel for the plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL.

On May 25, 2017, the Company filed an action in New Mexico federal court in which the Company seeks a declaratory judgment that the Attorney General of the State of New Mexico is prohibited by, among other things, the United States Constitution, from pursuing the New Mexico Motor Oil Matter and an order enjoining the Attorney General from pursuing such an action. (Dollar General Corporation v. Hector H. Balderas, D.N.M., Case No. 1:17-cv-00588).

The Company believes that the labeling, marketing and sale of its private-label motor oil comply with applicable federal and state requirements and are not misleading. The Company further believes that these matters are not appropriate for class or similar treatment. The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters; however, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether these matters will be permitted to proceed as a class or in a similar fashion, whether on a state-wide or nationwide basis, or the size of any putative class or classes. 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 matters 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 the Motor Oil MDL or the New Mexico Motor Oil Matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.

Shareholder Litigation

The Company is defending litigation filed in January and February 2017 in which the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of shareholders, allege that between March 10, 2016 and December 1, 2016, the Company and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the impact to sales of changes to certain federal programs that provide supplemental nutritional assistance to individuals. (Iron Workers Local Union No. 405 Annuity Fund v. Dollar General Corporation, et al., M.D. Tenn. Case No. 3:17-cv-00063; Julia Askins v. Dollar General Corporation, et al., M.D. Tenn., Case No. 3:17-cv-00276; Bruce Velan v. Dollar General Corporation, et al., M.D. Tenn., Case No. 3:17-cv-00275)(collectively “the Shareholder Litigation”). The plaintiffs in the Shareholder Litigation seek the following relief: compensatory damages, unspecified equitable relief, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees and expenses. The court has consolidated the cases, appointed a lead plaintiff and entered a preliminary scheduling order.

The Company believes that the statements at issue in the Shareholder Litigation complied with the federal securities laws and intends to vigorously defend this action. At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the Shareholder Litigation 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 in this action, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss in this matter; however if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of the Shareholder Litigation could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.

On April 10, 2017, a shareholder derivative action was filed in which the plaintiff asserts, purportedly on behalf of the Company, claims against the Company’s board of directors and certain of its officers for alleged breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment and violation of federal securities laws based upon factual allegations substantially similar to those in the Shareholder Litigation. (Robert Anderson v. Todd Vasos, et al., M.D. Tenn. Case No. 3:17-cv-00693)(“the Derivative Litigation”). The plaintiff in the Derivative Litigation seeks, purportedly on behalf of the Company, the following relief: compensatory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement, and attorneys’ fees and expenses. The court has stayed all proceedings in the Derivative Litigation pending the resolution of the Company’s motion to dismiss, if any, in the Shareholder Litigation.

Environmental Matter

In February 2014, certain California District Attorneys’ Offices (“California DAs”), representing California’s county environmental authorities, informed the Company that they were investigating the Company’s hazardous waste handling and disposal practices in certain of its California stores and its California distribution center. On September 22, 2016, the California DAs provided a settlement demand to the Company that included a proposed civil penalty and certain injunctive relief. In April 2017, the parties reached an agreement to settle this matter for an amount greater than $100,000 but not material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole, and the settlement has received final approval by the Court.