Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
May 04, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 7. Commitments and Contingencies We are involved in ongoing legal and regulatory proceedings. Other than those described in the following paragraphs, there were no material changes to our disclosures of commitments and contingencies from our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2013. 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. We have entered into settlement agreements with virtually all of the individual plaintiffs for an amount that will not 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 sought 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 class-wide settlement with plaintiffs and the Court granted final approval on April 22, 2013. The settlement will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements. Consumer Class Action Claims California 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. The parties mediated the matter in March and a tentative settlement has been reached for an amount that will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements. Massachusetts Zip Code Claims 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 Massachusetts statute regarding the collection of personally identification information in connection with a credit card transaction. On March 11, 2013, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on certified questions on the interpretation of the statute and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings. Following the Judicial Court’s decision, an additional purported class action lawsuit asserting the same allegations in Tyler was filed in the U.S. District Court-District of Massachusetts by Susan D’Esposito, and the two cases have been consolidated. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims 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 is claiming violation of Ohio law ORC 1345.01 et seq., unjust enrichment and fraud. The plaintiff has alleged damages, penalties and fees not to exceed $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. 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. 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. 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 alleging 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. A number of additional purported class action lawsuits significantly mirroring the claims in the Ramundo complaint were filed against the Company, and subsequently these cases and the Ramundo case were consolidated and transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. On August 20, 2012, we reached a tentative class-wide settlement with plaintiffs for an amount that will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements and the Court granted final approval on April 17, 2013. 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, as well as other matters previously disclosed in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), 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 or as previously disclosed in the Company’s filings with the SEC, 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.

Note 7. Commitments and Contingencies

We are involved in ongoing legal and regulatory proceedings. Other than those described in the following paragraphs, there were no material changes to our disclosures of commitments and contingencies from our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2013.

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. We have entered into settlement agreements with virtually all of the individual plaintiffs for an amount that will not 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 sought 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 class-wide settlement with plaintiffs and the Court granted final approval on April 22, 2013. The settlement will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Consumer Class Action Claims

California 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. The parties mediated the matter in March and a tentative settlement has been reached for an amount that will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Massachusetts Zip Code Claims

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 Massachusetts statute regarding the collection of personally identification information in connection with a credit card transaction. On March 11, 2013, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on certified questions on the interpretation of the statute and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings. Following the Judicial Court’s decision, an additional purported class action lawsuit asserting the same allegations in Tyler was filed in the U.S. District Court-District of Massachusetts by Susan D’Esposito, and the two cases have been consolidated. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims 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 is claiming violation of Ohio law ORC 1345.01 et seq., unjust enrichment and fraud. The plaintiff has alleged damages, penalties and fees not to exceed $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. 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.

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.

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 alleging 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. A number of additional purported class action lawsuits significantly mirroring the claims in the Ramundo complaint were filed against the Company, and subsequently these cases and the Ramundo case were consolidated and transferred to the Northern District of Illinois.

On August 20, 2012, we reached a tentative class-wide settlement with plaintiffs for an amount that will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements and the Court granted final approval on April 17, 2013.

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, as well as other matters previously disclosed in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), 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 or as previously disclosed in the Company’s filings with the SEC, 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.