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.

Wage and Hour Litigation

The Company is defending the following wage and hour matters (collectively the “Wage/Hour Litigation”):

California Wage/Hour Litigation: 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 seek to proceed on a statewide class basis and to recover alleged unpaid wages, injunctive relief, consequential damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Pennsylvania Wage/Hour Litigation: Plaintiff alleges that he and other similarly situated current and former hourly employees were subjected to unlawful policies and practices and were denied regular and overtime wages in violation of federal and Pennsylvania law. The plaintiff seeks to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under federal law and a statewide class basis under Pennsylvania law and to recover alleged unpaid wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Tennessee Wage/Hour Litigation: Plaintiffs allege that they and other similarly situated current and former “key holders” were not paid for all hours worked in violation of federal, Illinois and Tennessee law. The plaintiffs seek to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under federal law and a statewide class basis under Tennessee and Illinois law and to recover alleged unpaid wages, statutory and common law damages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Company is vigorously defending the Wage/Hour Litigation and believes that its policies and practices comply with federal and state laws and that these actions are not appropriate for class or similar treatment. At this time, it is not possible to predict whether these matters will be permitted to proceed as a class or other similar action, 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 any potential loss or range of loss in these matters; however, 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.

Other Employment Litigation

The Company is defending the following employment-related matters (collectively the “Employment Litigation/Matters”):

California Suitable Seating Litigation: The plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to provide her and other current and former California store employees with suitable seats in violation of California law. The plaintiff seeks to recover penalties under the PAGA, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

EEOC Cause Finding: The Birmingham District Office of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has notified the Company of a cause finding related to the Company’s use of post offer, pre-employment physical assessments for the general warehouse position at the Company’s distribution center located in Bessemer, Alabama. The cause finding alleges that the assessment, as applied to candidates for the general warehouse position in the Bessemer distribution center, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The EEOC has notified the Company of its view that conciliation has failed and has referred the matter to its Legal Department for further evaluation, including whether to file suit against the Company.

The Company is vigorously defending the Employment Litigation/Matters and believes that its employment policies and practices comply with federal and state law and that these matters are not appropriate for class or similar treatment. 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, 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 any potential loss or range of loss in these matters; however if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of these matters 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 court recently granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss the allegations raised in the consolidated amended complaint. 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 (the “New Mexico AG” or “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 State is represented in connection with this matter by counsel for the plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL.

On May 25, 2017, in response to the Notice of Proposed Action, the Company filed an action in New Mexico federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that the Attorney General 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). Thereafter, on June 20, 2017, the New Mexico Attorney General filed an action in the First Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, New Mexico pertaining to the New Mexico Motor Oil Matter. (Hector H. Balderas v. Dolgencorp, LLC, Case No. D-101-cv-2017-01562). The Company removed this matter to New Mexico federal court on July 26, 2017, and has filed a motion to dismiss the action. The State has moved to remand the matter to state court. (Hector H. Balderas v. Dolgencorp, LLC, D.N.M., Case No. 1:17-cv-772).

The Company is vigorously defending these matters and 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. At this time, however, 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 statewide 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 (the “Individual Defendants”) 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. A motion to dismiss filed by the Company and the Individual Defendants is pending.

The Company believes that the statements at issue in the Shareholder Litigation complied with the federal securities laws and intends to vigorously defend this matter. 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.

The Company is also defending shareholder derivative actions filed in April, July and August 2017, in which each plaintiff asserts, purportedly on behalf of the Company, some or all of the following claims against the Company’s board of directors and certain of its officers based upon factual allegations substantially similar to those in the Shareholder Litigation: alleged breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, violation of federal securities laws, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement. (Robert Anderson v. Todd Vasos, et al., M.D. Tenn. Case No. 3:17-cv-00693; Sharon Shaver v. Todd J. Vasos, et al., Chancery Court for the Twentieth Judicial District of Davidson County, Tennessee, Case No. 17-797-I; Glenn Saito v. Todd Vasos, et al., M.D. Tenn., Case No. 3:17-cv-01138) (collectively “the Derivative Litigation”). The plaintiffs in the Derivative Litigation seek, purportedly on behalf of the Company, some or all of the following relief: compensatory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement, restitution and attorneys’ fees and expenses. Proceedings in the Anderson matter have been stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Shareholder Litigation, and the Company and other defendants in the remaining derivative actions (Shaver and Saito) expect to seek a similar stay in those actions.