Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

We operate stores and use distribution centers, office facilities, and equipment that are generally leased under non-cancelable operating leases, the majority of which provide for renewal options. Future minimum annual rental commitments for all non-cancelable operating leases as of February 2, 2013 are as follows (in millions):

For the fiscal year:	Operating Leases
2013	$	377
2014	330
2015	272
2016	221
2017	165
Thereafter	366
Total minimum rental commitments	$	1,731

Rent expense applicable to non-cancelable operating leases was $355 million, $345 million, and $327 million, in fiscal 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively.

Employee Claims

Adams Claim

On March 20, 2009, 114 individuals commenced an action against the Company styled Adams, et al. v. Michaels Stores, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint was later amended to add 15 additional plaintiffs. In 2010, two additional lawsuits making the same allegations were filed in the Central District Court by eight additional plaintiffs, styled Borgen, et al. v. Michaels Stores, Inc. and Langstaff v. Michaels Stores, Inc., and were later consolidated with the Adams suit. The Adams consolidated suit (“Adams”) alleges that the plaintiffs, certain former and current store managers in California, were improperly classified as exempt employees and, as such, Michaels failed to pay overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods (or compensation in lieu thereof), accurately record hours worked and provide itemized employee wage statements. The Adams suit additionally alleges that the foregoing conduct was in breach of California’s unfair competition law. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, damages for unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. A number of the individual plaintiff claims have been settled for immaterial amounts. A bench trial on one of the plaintiff’s cases occurred in December 2010. The Court has orally advised that Michaels was successful at trial, but has not yet provided its decision in writing. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the remaining individual claims vigorously. We do not believe the resolution of these cases will have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Ragano Claim

On July 11, 2011, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court in and for the County of San Mateo by Anita Ragano, as a purported class action proceeding on behalf of herself and all current and former hourly retail employees employed by Michaels stores in California. We removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on August 9, 2011. The complaint was subsequently amended to add an additional named plaintiff, Terri McDonald. The lawsuit alleges that Michaels stores failed to pay all wages and overtime, failed to provide its hourly employees with adequate meal and rest breaks (or compensation in lieu thereof), failed to timely pay final wages, unlawfully withheld wages and failed to provide accurate wage statements and further alleges that the foregoing conduct was in breach of various laws, including California’s unfair competition law. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, meal and rest break penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 10, 2012, we reached a tentative class-wide settlement with plaintiffs and the Court granted preliminary approval on October 26, 2012. A final approval hearing is scheduled for April 5, 2013. The settlement, if approval is granted, will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements, and was accrued as of February 2, 2013.

Rea Claim

On September 15, 2011, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court in and for the County of Orange (“Superior Court”) by four former store managers as a purported class action proceeding on behalf of themselves and certain former and current store managers employed by Michaels stores in California. The lawsuit alleges that the Company stores improperly classified its store managers as exempt employees and as such failed to pay all wages, overtime, waiting time penalties and failed to provide accurate wage statements. The lawsuit also alleges that the foregoing conduct was in breach of various laws, including California’s unfair competition law. The plaintiffs have pled less than five million dollars in damages, penalties, costs of suit and attorneys’ fees, exclusive of interest. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. We do not believe the resolution of the lawsuit will have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements.

Tijero and Godfrey Consolidated Claim

On February 12, 2010, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, Aaron Brothers, was served with a lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court in and for the County of Alameda by Jose Tijero, a former assistant manager for Aaron Brothers, as a purported class action proceeding on behalf of himself and all current and former hourly retail employees employed by Aaron Brothers in California. On July 12, 2010, Aaron Brothers was served with a lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court in and for the County of Orange by Amanda Godfrey, a former Aaron Brothers’ hourly employee alleging similar allegations as in the Tijero suit. On October 15, 2010, the cases were consolidated against Aaron Brothers and re-filed in the U.S. District Court—Northern District of California. These suits allege that Aaron Brothers failed to pay all wages and overtime, failed to provide its hourly employees with adequate meal and rest breaks (or compensation in lieu thereof), failed to timely pay final wages, unlawfully withheld wages and failed to provide accurate wage statements and further alleges that the foregoing conduct was in breach of various laws, including California’s unfair competition law. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, meal and rest break penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 4, 2012, we reached a class-wide settlement with plaintiffs that is subject to the Court’s approval. The Court has denied the approval of the settlement, without prejudice, however, a renewed motion seeking approval of the settlement has been filed. The settlement, if approved, will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements, and was accrued as of February 2, 2013.

Irene Barreras Claim

On July 24, 2012, Irene Barreras, a former employee, filed a purported class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda (“Alameda Superior Court”), alleging unfair business competition and unjust enrichment, wrongful termination, disability discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, and failure to accommodate mental or physical disabilities. The suit is brought on Ms. Barreras’ behalf and on behalf of a class of all retail store employees who were terminated from July 24, 2008 to the present, allegedly due to Michaels refusal to engage in the interactive process with, or provide accommodations to, the terminated employees who did not meet the qualifications for medical leaves. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, consequential damages, general damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 24, 2012, we removed the case to the United States District Court, Northern District of California. Plaintiffs’ deadline to file its Motion for Class Certification is September 25, 2013.We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. We do not believe the resolution of the lawsuit will have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Consumer Class Action Claims

Zip Code Claims

On August 15, 2008, Linda Carson, a consumer, filed a purported class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (“San Diego Superior Court”), on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated California consumers. The Carson lawsuit alleges that Michaels unlawfully requested and recorded personally identifiable information (i.e., her zip code) as part of a credit card transaction. The plaintiff sought statutory penalties, costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees. We contested certification of this claim as a class action and filed a motion to dismiss the claim. On March 9, 2009, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice. The plaintiff appealed this decision to the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, San Diego. On July 22, 2010, the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the case. The plaintiff appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of California (“California Supreme Court”). On September 29, 2010, the California Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s petition for review; however, it stayed any further proceedings in the case until another similar zip code case pending before the court, Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, was decided. On February 10, 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled, in the Williams-Sonoma case, that zip codes are personally identifiable information and therefore the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, as amended (“Song Act”), prohibits businesses from requesting or requiring zip codes in connection with a credit card transaction. On or about April 6, 2011, the Supreme Court transferred the Carson case back to the Court of Appeals with directions to the Court to reconsider its decision in light of the Pineda decision. Upon reconsideration, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the San Diego Superior Court on May 31, 2011.

Additionally, since the California Supreme Court decision on February 10, 2011, three additional purported class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Song Act have been filed against the Company: Carolyn Austin v. Michaels Stores, Inc. and Tiffany Heon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., both in the San Diego Superior Court and Sandra A. Rubinstein v. Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Central Division. The Rubinstein case was transferred to the San Diego Superior Court. An order coordinating the cases has been entered and plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on April 24, 2012. Plaintiffs seek damages, civil penalties, common settlement fund recovery, attorney fees, costs of suit and prejudgment interest.

Also, relying in part on the California Supreme Court decision, an additional purported class action lawsuit was filed on May 20, 2011 against the Company: Melissa Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc. in the U.S. District Court-District of Massachusetts, alleging violation of a similar Massachusetts statute regarding the collection of personally identifiable information in connection with a credit card transaction. A hearing was held on October 20, 2011 on our Motion to Dismiss the claims. On January 6, 2012, the Court granted our Motion to Dismiss. The Court thereafter certified questions of law to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court regarding the interpretation of the Statute. On March 11, 2013, the District Court’s dismissal of the action was reversed and it was remanded back to the District Court for further proceedings.

We intend to vigorously defend each of these zip code claim cases and we are unable, at this time, to estimate a range of loss, if any.

Pricing and Promotion

On April 30, 2012, William J. Henry, a consumer, filed a purported class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated Ohio consumers who purchased framing products and/or services from Michaels during weeks where Michaels was advertising a discount for framing products and/or services. The lawsuit alleges that Michaels advertised discounts on its framing products and/or services without actually providing a discount to its customers. The plaintiff claims violation of Ohio law ORC 1345.01 et seq., breach of contract, unjust enrichment and fraud. The plaintiff has alleged damages, penalties and fees not to exceed $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. We filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 3, 2012. On October 23, 2012, the Court granted our Motion to Dismiss, in part, dismissing the Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim and denying the motion as to the other claims. A trial is scheduled for February 2014. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. We do not believe the resolution of this lawsuit will have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Website Tracking and Coding

On June 19, 2012, Jerome Jurgens, a citizen of Missouri, filed a purported class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the 25th Judicial Circuit Court, Phelps County, Missouri, on behalf of himself, Wendy Poepsel and all other similarly-situated Missouri individuals who, on or after June 19, 2007, accessed the Michaels website and had Flash cookies attach to their computers. Plaintiffs allege that Michaels, through the use of its website, makes use of cookies in order to ascertain user’s web browsing habits. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege violations of the Missouri Computer Tampering and Merchandising Practices Act statutes, as well as common law claims of conversion, trespass to chattels, invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment are alleging damages, penalties and fees not to exceed $5 million, inclusive of costs and attorneys’ fees. We filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 8, 2012, which was subsequently denied. Trial is to commence in September 2013. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Michaels has tendered the matter to a vendor and the vendor has accepted the indemnity and defense of the case.

Data Breach Claims

Payment Card Terminal Tampering

On May 3, 2011, we were advised by the U.S. Secret Service that they were investigating certain fraudulent debit card transactions that occurred on accounts that had been used for legitimate purchases in selected Michaels stores. A subsequent internal investigation revealed that approximately 90 payment card terminals in certain Michaels stores had been physically tampered with, potentially resulting in customer debit and credit card information to be compromised. We have since removed and replaced approximately 7,100 payment card terminals comparable to the identified tampered payment card terminals from our Michaels stores. The Company continues to cooperate with various governmental entities and law enforcement authorities in investigating the payment card terminal tampering, but we do not know the full extent of any fraudulent use of such information.

On May 18, 2011, Brandi F. Ramundo, a consumer, filed a purported class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of herself and all similarly- situated U.S. consumers. The Ramundo lawsuit alleges that Michaels failed to take commercially reasonable steps to protect consumer financial data, and was in breach of contract and laws, including the Federal Stored Communications Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, costs, credit card fraud monitoring services, interest and attorneys’ fees. Subsequently two additional purported class action lawsuits significantly mirroring the claims in the Ramundo complaint were filed against the Company: Mary Allen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., and Kimberly Siprut v. Michaels Stores, Inc., both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On June 8, 2011, an order was entered consolidating these matters, which also provided for consolidation of all related actions subsequently filed in or transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. On July 8, 2011, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint styled In Re Michaels Stores Pin Pad Litigation (“In Re Michaels Stores Consolidated Complaint”) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On August 8, 2011, we filed a Motion to Dismiss the In Re Michaels Stores Consolidated Complaint. On November 23, 2011, the Court dismissed the Stored Communications Act and negligence claims under Illinois law, but denied the motion as to the breach of implied contract and Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act claims.

Four other substantially similar putative class action lawsuits have also been filed. Jeremy Williams v. Michaels Stores, Inc. and Fred Sherry v. Michaels Stores, Inc., were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Sara Rosenfeld and Ilana Soffer v. Michaels Stores, Inc. and Lori Wilson v. Michaels Stores, Inc. were both filed in New Jersey state court, removed to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The New Jersey cases assert negligence and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claims. All four cases are subject to the consolidation order. The Court has held that Michaels is not required to respond to those complaints.

On August 20, 2012, we reached a tentative class-wide settlement with plaintiffs and the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on December 19, 2012. A final approval hearing is scheduled for April 4, 2013. The settlement, will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements, and was accrued as of February 2, 2013.

Governmental Inquiries and Related Matters

Non-U.S. Trust Inquiry

In early 2005, the District Attorney’s office of the County of New York and the SEC opened inquiries concerning non-U.S. trusts that directly or indirectly held shares of Michaels Common Stock and Common Stock options. On July 29, 2010, the SEC filed a civil enforcement action in federal district court for the Southern District of New York against Charles Wyly, Sam Wyly, the Wylys’ attorney - Michael French, and others alleging, among other things, violations of various federal securities laws, including those governing ownership reporting and trading of securities, in connection with the non-U.S. trusts and their subsidiaries. Additional information may be obtained at the SEC’s website. Sam Wyly, the estate of Charles Wyly and Mr. French, also a former director of the Company, have requested indemnification from the Company for certain legal costs with respect to these matters. The Company has resolved all claims with regards to Sam Wyly and the estate of Charles Wyly for an immaterial amount.

On April 12, 2012, Mr. French filed a lawsuit against the Company and the non-U.S. trusts in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas. The matter was dismissed as to the non-U.S. trusts. Mr. French seeks damages from the Company for breach of contract, attorneys’ fees and costs related to the Company’s alleged indemnification obligations to Mr. French and attorneys’ fees and costs related to the lawsuit. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the claims vigorously. We do not believe the resolution of this case will have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements.

General

In addition to the litigation discussed above, we are, and in the future, may be involved in various other lawsuits, claims and proceedings incident to the ordinary course of business. The results of litigation are inherently unpredictable. Any claims against us, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of management time and result in diversion of significant resources.

ASC 450, Contingencies, governs the disclosure and recognition of loss contingencies, including potential losses from litigation and regulatory matters. It imposes different requirements for the recognition and disclosure of loss contingencies based on the likelihood of occurrence of the contingent future event or events. It distinguishes among degrees of likelihood using the following three terms: “probable”, meaning that “the future event or events are likely to occur”; “remote”, meaning that “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight”; and “reasonably possible”, meaning that “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely”. In accordance with ASC 450, the Company accrues for a loss contingency when we conclude that the likelihood of a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. When the loss cannot be reasonably estimated we estimate the range of amounts, and if no amount in the range constitutes a better estimate than any other amount, we accrue for the amount at the low end of the range. We adjust our accruals from time to time as we receive additional information, but the loss we incur may be significantly greater than or less than the amount we have accrued. We disclose loss contingencies if there is at least a reasonable possibility that a material loss has been incurred. No accrual or disclosure is required for losses that are remote.

For some of the matters disclosed above, the Company is currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued (if any). For some of the matters included within this estimation, an accrual has been made because a loss is believed to be both probable and reasonably estimable, but an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued; in these cases, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the accrued amount. For other matters included within this estimation, no accrual has been made because a loss, although estimable, is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable; in these cases the estimate reflects the reasonably possible loss or range of loss within the ranges identified. For the various ranges identified, the aggregate of these estimated amounts is approximately $14 million, which is also inclusive of amounts accrued by the Company.

For other matters disclosed above, the Company is not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, and has indicated such. Many of these matters remain in preliminary stages (even in some cases where a substantial period of time has passed since the commencement of the matter), with few or no substantive legal decisions by the court defining the scope of the claims, the class (if any), or the potentially available damages, and fact discovery is still in progress or has not yet begun. For all these reasons, the Company cannot at this time estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, for these matters.

It is the opinion of the Company’s management, based on current knowledge and after taking into account its current legal accruals, the eventual outcome of all matters described in this Note would not be likely to have a material impact on the consolidated financial condition of the Company. Nonetheless, given the substantial or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters, and the inherent unpredictability of such matters, an adverse outcome in certain of these matters could, from time to time, have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.