Commitments and contingencies	6 Months Ended
Aug. 02, 2019
Commitments and contingencies
Commitments and contingencies	7.Commitments and contingencies Legal proceedings From time to time, the Company is a party to various legal matters in the ordinary course 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. In the 13-week period ended August 2, 2019, the Company recorded an accrual of $31.0 million for losses the Company believes are both probable and reasonably estimable relating to certified class actions and associated matters in Wage and Hour/Employment Litigation and Consumer/Product Litigation. Except as described below and based on information currently available, the Company believes that its pending legal 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. Adverse decisions and settlements, including any required changes to the Company’s business, or other developments in such matters, including without limitation those matters disclosed in Note 6 to the audited consolidated financial statements contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 22, 2019 under “Wage and Hour/Employment Litigation,” could affect our consolidated operating results in future periods or could result in liability or other amounts material to the Company’s annual consolidated financial statements. Consumer/Product Litigation In December 2015 the Company was first notified of several lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege violation of state law, including state consumer protection laws, relating to the labeling, marketing and sale of certain 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 (“JPML”) 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, plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL filed a consolidated amended complaint, in which they sought 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 was granted in part and denied in part on August 3, 2017. 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”) which alleges that the Company’s labeling, marketing and sale of certain 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 plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL. On June 20, 2017, the New Mexico AG 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 it was transferred to the Motor Oil MDL. (Hector H. Balderas v. Dolgencorp, LLC, D.N.M., Case No. 1:17-cv-772). On April 23, 2019, the matter was remanded to state court, and on May 3, 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the action. On September 1, 2017, the Mississippi Attorney General (the “Mississippi AG”), who also is represented by the counsel for plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL, filed an action in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi in which the Mississippi AG alleges that the Company’s labeling, marketing and sale of certain Dollar General private-label motor oil violated Mississippi law. (Jim Hood v. Dollar General Corporation, Case No. G2017-1229 T/1) (the “Mississippi Motor Oil Matter”). The Company removed this matter to Mississippi federal court on October 5, 2017, and filed a motion to dismiss the action. The matter was transferred to the Motor Oil MDL and the Mississippi AG moved to remand it to state court. (Jim Hood v. Dollar General Corporation, N.D. Miss., Case No. 3:17-cv-801-LG-LRA). On May 7, 2019, the Mississippi AG renewed its motion to remand. The Company’s and the Mississippi AG’s above-referenced motions are pending. On January 30, 2018, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Office of the Louisiana Attorney General requesting information concerning the Company’s labeling, marketing and sale of certain Dollar General private-label motor oil (the “Louisiana Motor Oil Matter”). In response to the CID, the Company filed a petition for a protective order on February 20, 2018 in the 19^th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana seeking to set aside the CID. (In re Dollar General Corp. and Dolgencorp, LLC, Case No. 666499). The Company’s petition is pending. On August 20, 2018, plaintiffs moved to certify two nationwide classes relating to their claims of alleged unjust enrichment and breach of implied warranties. In addition, plaintiffs moved to certify a multi-state class relating to their claims of breach of implied warranties and multiple statewide classes relating to alleged unfair trade practices/consumer fraud, unjust enrichment and breach of implied warranty claims. The Company opposed the plaintiffs’ certification motion. On March 21, 2019, the court granted the plaintiffs’ certification motion as to 16 statewide classes regarding claims of unjust enrichment and 16 statewide classes regarding state consumer protection laws. Subsequently, the court certified an additional class, bringing the total to 17 statewide classes. The court denied plaintiffs’ certification motion in all other respects. On June 25, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted the Company’s Petition to Appeal the lower court’s certification rulings. 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 ultimately will be permitted to proceed as a class or in a similar fashion or the size of any putative class or classes. Likewise, no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of these matters on the merits or otherwise. The Company now believes that a loss in this matter is both probable and reasonably estimable, and during the 13-week period ended August 2, 2019, recorded an accrual for an amount that is immaterial to the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.

Commitments and contingencies

6 Months Ended

Aug. 02, 2019

7.Commitments and contingencies

Legal proceedings

From time to time, the Company is a party to various legal matters in the ordinary course 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. In the 13-week period ended August 2, 2019, the Company recorded an accrual of $31.0 million for losses the Company believes are both probable and reasonably estimable relating to certified class actions and associated matters in Wage and Hour/Employment Litigation and Consumer/Product Litigation.

Except as described below and based on information currently available, the Company believes that its pending legal 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. Adverse decisions and settlements, including any required changes to the Company’s business, or other developments in such matters, including without limitation those matters disclosed in Note 6 to the audited consolidated financial statements contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 22, 2019 under “Wage and Hour/Employment Litigation,” could affect our consolidated operating results in future periods or could result in liability or other amounts material to the Company’s annual consolidated financial statements.

Consumer/Product Litigation

In December 2015 the Company was first notified of several lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege violation of state law, including state consumer protection laws, relating to the labeling, marketing and sale of certain 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 (“JPML”) 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, plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL filed a consolidated amended complaint, in which they sought 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 was granted in part and denied in part on August 3, 2017. 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”) which alleges that the Company’s labeling, marketing and sale of certain 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 plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL.

On June 20, 2017, the New Mexico AG 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 it was transferred to the Motor Oil MDL. (Hector H. Balderas v. Dolgencorp, LLC, D.N.M., Case No. 1:17-cv-772). On April 23, 2019, the matter was remanded to state court, and on May 3, 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the action.

On September 1, 2017, the Mississippi Attorney General (the “Mississippi AG”), who also is represented by the counsel for plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL, filed an action in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi in which the Mississippi AG alleges that the Company’s labeling, marketing and sale of certain Dollar General private-label motor oil violated Mississippi law. (Jim Hood v. Dollar General Corporation, Case No. G2017-1229 T/1) (the “Mississippi Motor Oil Matter”). The Company removed this matter to Mississippi federal court on October 5, 2017, and filed a motion to dismiss the action. The matter was transferred to the Motor Oil MDL and the Mississippi AG moved to remand it to state court. (Jim Hood v. Dollar General Corporation, N.D. Miss., Case No. 3:17-cv-801-LG-LRA). On May 7, 2019, the Mississippi AG renewed its motion to remand. The Company’s and the Mississippi AG’s above-referenced motions are pending.

On January 30, 2018, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Office of the Louisiana Attorney General requesting information concerning the Company’s labeling, marketing and sale of certain Dollar General private-label motor oil (the “Louisiana Motor Oil Matter”). In response to the CID, the Company filed a petition for a protective order on February 20, 2018 in the 19^th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana seeking to set aside the CID. (In re Dollar General Corp. and Dolgencorp, LLC, Case No. 666499). The Company’s petition is pending.

On August 20, 2018, plaintiffs moved to certify two nationwide classes relating to their claims of alleged unjust enrichment and breach of implied warranties. In addition, plaintiffs moved to certify a multi-state class relating to their claims of breach of implied warranties and multiple statewide classes relating to alleged unfair trade practices/consumer fraud, unjust enrichment and breach of implied warranty claims. The Company opposed the plaintiffs’ certification motion. On March 21, 2019, the court granted the plaintiffs’ certification motion as to 16 statewide classes regarding claims of unjust enrichment and 16 statewide classes regarding state consumer protection laws. Subsequently, the court certified an additional class, bringing the total to 17 statewide classes. The court denied plaintiffs’ certification motion in all other respects. On June 25, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted the Company’s Petition to Appeal the lower court’s certification rulings.

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 ultimately will be permitted to proceed as a class or in a similar fashion or the size of any putative class or classes. Likewise, no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of these matters on the merits or otherwise. The Company now believes that a loss in this matter is both probable and reasonably estimable, and during the 13-week period ended August 2, 2019, recorded an accrual for an amount that is immaterial to the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.