LEGAL CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
May 05, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 10: LEGAL CONTINGENCIES On October 15, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Southern Independent Bank v. Fred’s, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama. The complaint includes allegations made by the plaintiff on behalf of itself and financial institutions similarly situated (“alleged class of financial institutions”) that the Company was negligent in failing to use reasonable care in obtaining, retaining, securing and deleting the personal and financial information of customers who use debit cards issued by the plaintiff and alleged class of financial institutions to make purchases at Fred’s stores. The complaint also includes allegations that the Company made negligent misrepresentations that the Company possessed and maintained adequate data security measures and systems that were sufficient to protect the personal and financial information of shoppers using debit cards issued by the plaintiff and alleged class of financial institutions. The complaint seeks monetary damages and equitable relief to be proved at trial as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company has denied the allegations and has filed a motion to dismiss all claims. This motion has since been denied, and the Company filed a motion to reconsider by certifying the question to the Alabama Supreme Court for clarity. However the Company’s motion was denied, and the Company has now completed discovery and is moving to trial. Future costs or liabilities related to the incident may have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company has not made an accrual for future losses related to these claims at this time as the future losses are not considered probable. The Company has a cyber liability policy with a $10 million limit and $100,000 deductible. On July 27, 2016, a lawsuit entitled The State of Mississippi v. Fred’s Inc., et al was filed in the Chancery Court of Desoto County, Mississippi, Third Judicial District. The complaint alleges that the Company fraudulently reported their usual and customary prices to Mississippi’s Division of Medicaid in order to receive higher reimbursements for prescription drugs. The complaint seeks declaratory and monetary relief for the profits alleged to have been unfairly earned as well as attorney costs. The Company denies these allegations and believes it acted appropriately in its dealings with the Mississippi Division of Medicaid. The Company successfully filed a Motion to Transfer to Circuit Court. The State filed and the Mississippi Supreme Court has accepted the State’s Petition for Interlocutory Appeal, despite the Company filing a Joint Response in opposition to the Petition. Future costs and liabilities related to this case may have a material adverse effect on the Company; however, the Company has not made an accrual for future losses related to these claims as it is not possible at this time to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or to estimate the amount or range of any potential loss. The Company has multiple insurance policies which the Company believes will limit its potential exposure. On September 29, 2016, the Company reported to the Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) that an unencrypted laptop containing clinical and demographic data for 9,624 individuals had been stolen from an employee’s vehicle while the vehicle was parked at the employee’s residence. On January 13, 2017, the OCR opened an investigation into the incident. The Company has fully complied with the investigation and timely responded to all requests for information from the OCR. The Company has not received any response from the OCR at this time. Future costs and liabilities related to this case may have a material adverse effect on the Company; however, the Company has not made an accrual for future losses related to these claims as future losses are not considered probable and an estimate is unavailable. On March 30, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Tiffany Taylor, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Fred’s Inc. and Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Southern Division. The complaint alleges that the Company wrongfully and willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”). On April 11, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Melanie Wallace, Sascha Feliciano, and Heather Tyler, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County in the state of Georgia. The complaint alleges that the Company wrongfully and willfully violated FACTA. On April 13, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Lillie Williams and Cussetta Journey, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County in the state of Georgia. The complaint also alleges that the Company wrongfully and willfully violated FACTA. The complaints are filed as Class Actions, with the class being open for five (5) years before the date the complaint was filed. The complaint seeks statutory damages, attorney’s fees, punitive damages, an injunctive order, and other such relief that the court may deem just and equitable. The Company has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Taylor complaint, and this Motion has been granted by the Court. Plaintiff’s counsel has appealed the Taylor complaint. The Company filed and the Court granted Motions to Remove and Motions to Transfer the Williams and Wallace matters to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Since the Williams and Wallace matters were removed and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, the Company has filed a Motion to Consolidate the Williams and Wallace matters. The Court has yet to rule on the Motion to Consolidate. Plaintiff’s counsel for each of the Williams and Wallace matters has filed a Motion to Remand the matters. Fred’s opposed the Motion to Remand, and the Motion to Remand was denied by the Court. Future costs and liabilities related to this case may have a material adverse effect on the Company; however, the Company has not made an accrual for future losses related to these claims as future losses are not considered probable and an estimate is unavailable. On March 3, 2018, a lawsuit entitled Abel Eddington and Judy Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Fred’s Inc., and Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The complaint alleges that the Company committed various Federal and state wage and hours violations. The complaint is filed as Class Action and seeks back wages, attorneys’ fees, and all other damages allowable by law. The Company denies these allegations and believes it acted appropriately in its wage and hour calculations and payments. Future costs and liabilities related to this case may have a material adverse effect on the Company; however, the Company has not made an accrual for future losses related to these claims as future losses are not considered probable, and an estimate is unavailable. The Company has multiple insurance policies which the Company believes will limit its potential exposure. On March 16, 2018, a lawsuit entitled Roxie Whitley , individually and as next friend of Baby Z.B.D., and Chris and Diane Denson, individually and as next friends of Baby L.D.L., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma, Inc.; The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.; McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health, Inc.; AmeriSourceBergen Corporation; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Allergan PLC; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Actavis, Inc.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc.; and Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the Circuit Court of Fayette County, Tennessee for the 25^th Judicial District at Somerville. The complaint fails to allege any wrong-doing by the Company. The Complaint is filed as a class action seeking various remedies allowed under Federal and state laws. The Company denies any purported wrong-doing. On May 9, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing, a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Product Liability Causes of Action, a Motion to Dismiss for Statute of Limitations, and a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on which Relief may be Sought (collectively, the “May 9, 2018 Motions”). The Court has not ruled on the May 9, 2018 Motions. On May 9, 2018 this matter was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio as part of the National Prescription Opiate Litigation Multidistrict Litigation. Future costs and liabilities related to this case may have a material adverse effect on the Company; however the Company has not made an accrual for future losses related to these claims as future losses are not considered probable, and an estimate is unavailable. The Company has multiple insurance policies which the Company believes will limit its potential exposure. In addition to the matters disclosed above, the Company is party to several pending legal proceedings and claims arising in the normal course of business. Although the outcomes of these proceedings and claims against the Company cannot be determined with certainty, management of the Company is of the opinion that these proceedings and claims should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial statements as a whole. However, litigation involves an element of uncertainty. Future developments could cause these actions or claims, individually or in aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the Company ’s financial statements as a whole.

LEGAL CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

May 05, 2018

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 10: LEGAL CONTINGENCIES

On October 15, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Southern Independent Bank v. Fred’s, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama. The complaint includes allegations made by the plaintiff on behalf of itself and financial institutions similarly situated (“alleged class of financial institutions”) that the Company was negligent in failing to use reasonable care in obtaining, retaining, securing and deleting the personal and financial information of customers who use debit cards issued by the plaintiff and alleged class of financial institutions to make purchases at Fred’s stores. The complaint also includes allegations that the Company made negligent misrepresentations that the Company possessed and maintained adequate data security measures and systems that were sufficient to protect the personal and financial information of shoppers using debit cards issued by the plaintiff and alleged class of financial institutions. The complaint seeks monetary damages and equitable relief to be proved at trial as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company has denied the allegations and has filed a motion to dismiss all claims. This motion has since been denied, and the Company filed a motion to reconsider by certifying the question to the Alabama Supreme Court for clarity. However the Company’s motion was denied, and the Company has now completed discovery and is moving to trial. Future costs or liabilities related to the incident may have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company has not made an accrual for future losses related to these claims at this time as the future losses are not considered probable. The Company has a cyber liability policy with a $10 million limit and $100,000 deductible.

On July 27, 2016, a lawsuit entitled The State of Mississippi v. Fred’s Inc., et al was filed in the Chancery Court of Desoto County, Mississippi, Third Judicial District. The complaint alleges that the Company fraudulently reported their usual and customary prices to Mississippi’s Division of Medicaid in order to receive higher reimbursements for prescription drugs. The complaint seeks declaratory and monetary relief for the profits alleged to have been unfairly earned as well as attorney costs. The Company denies these allegations and believes it acted appropriately in its dealings with the Mississippi Division of Medicaid. The Company successfully filed a Motion to Transfer to Circuit Court. The State filed and the Mississippi Supreme Court has accepted the State’s Petition for Interlocutory Appeal, despite the Company filing a Joint Response in opposition to the Petition. Future costs and liabilities related to this case may have a material adverse effect on the Company; however, the Company has not made an accrual for future losses related to these claims as it is not possible at this time to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or to estimate the amount or range of any potential loss. The Company has multiple insurance policies which the Company believes will limit its potential exposure.

On September 29, 2016, the Company reported to the Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) that an unencrypted laptop containing clinical and demographic data for 9,624 individuals had been stolen from an employee’s vehicle while the vehicle was parked at the employee’s residence. On January 13, 2017, the OCR opened an investigation into the incident. The Company has fully complied with the investigation and timely responded to all requests for information from the OCR. The Company has not received any response from the OCR at this time. Future costs and liabilities related to this case may have a material adverse effect on the Company; however, the Company has not made an accrual for future losses related to these claims as future losses are not considered probable and an estimate is unavailable.

On March 30, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Tiffany Taylor, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Fred’s Inc. and Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Southern Division. The complaint alleges that the Company wrongfully and willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”). On April 11, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Melanie Wallace, Sascha Feliciano, and Heather Tyler, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County in the state of Georgia. The complaint alleges that the Company wrongfully and willfully violated FACTA. On April 13, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Lillie Williams and Cussetta Journey, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County in the state of Georgia. The complaint also alleges that the Company wrongfully and willfully violated FACTA. The complaints are filed as Class Actions, with the class being open for five (5) years before the date the complaint was filed. The complaint seeks statutory damages, attorney’s fees, punitive damages, an injunctive order, and other such relief that the court may deem just and equitable. The Company has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Taylor complaint, and this Motion has been granted by the Court. Plaintiff’s counsel has appealed the Taylor complaint. The Company filed and the Court granted Motions to Remove and Motions to Transfer the Williams and Wallace matters to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Since the Williams and Wallace matters were removed and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, the Company has filed a Motion to Consolidate the Williams and Wallace matters. The Court has yet to rule on the Motion to Consolidate. Plaintiff’s counsel for each of the Williams and Wallace matters has filed a Motion to Remand the matters. Fred’s opposed the Motion to Remand, and the Motion to Remand was denied by the Court. Future costs and liabilities related to this case may have a material adverse effect on the Company; however, the Company has not made an accrual for future losses related to these claims as future losses are not considered probable and an estimate is unavailable.

On March 3, 2018, a lawsuit entitled Abel Eddington and Judy Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Fred’s Inc., and Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The complaint alleges that the Company committed various Federal and state wage and hours violations. The complaint is filed as Class Action and seeks back wages, attorneys’ fees, and all other damages allowable by law. The Company denies these allegations and believes it acted appropriately in its wage and hour calculations and payments. Future costs and liabilities related to this case may have a material adverse effect on the Company; however, the Company has not made an accrual for future losses related to these claims as future losses are not considered probable, and an estimate is unavailable. The Company has multiple insurance policies which the Company believes will limit its potential exposure.

On March 16, 2018, a lawsuit entitled Roxie Whitley , individually and as next friend of Baby Z.B.D., and Chris and Diane Denson, individually and as next friends of Baby L.D.L., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma, Inc.; The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.; McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health, Inc.; AmeriSourceBergen Corporation; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Allergan PLC; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Actavis, Inc.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc.; and Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the Circuit Court of Fayette County, Tennessee for the 25^th Judicial District at Somerville. The complaint fails to allege any wrong-doing by the Company. The Complaint is filed as a class action seeking various remedies allowed under Federal and state laws. The Company denies any purported wrong-doing. On May 9, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing, a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Product Liability Causes of Action, a Motion to Dismiss for Statute of Limitations, and a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on which Relief may be Sought (collectively, the “May 9, 2018 Motions”). The Court has not ruled on the May 9, 2018 Motions. On May 9, 2018 this matter was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio as part of the National Prescription Opiate Litigation Multidistrict Litigation. Future costs and liabilities related to this case may have a material adverse effect on the Company; however the Company has not made an accrual for future losses related to these claims as future losses are not considered probable, and an estimate is unavailable. The Company has multiple insurance policies which the Company believes will limit its potential exposure.

In addition to the matters disclosed above, the Company is party to several pending legal proceedings and claims arising in the normal course of business. Although the outcomes of these proceedings and claims against the Company cannot be determined with certainty, management of the Company is of the opinion that these proceedings and claims should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial statements as a whole. However, litigation involves an element of uncertainty. Future developments could cause these actions or claims, individually or in aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the Company

’s financial statements as a whole.