Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
May 03, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 6. 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 1, 2014. Employee claims 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 class action proceeding on behalf of themselves and certain former and current store managers employed by Michaels 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. On December 3, 2013, the Superior Court entered an Order certifying a class of approximately 200 members. The Company subsequently successfully removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California and on May 8, 2014, the class was de-certified. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. We do not believe the resolution of the lawsuits will have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements. Consumer class action claims Data security incident Five putative class actions were filed relating to our recent Data Breach. The plaintiffs generally allege that the Company failed to secure and safeguard customers’ private information including credit and debit card information and as such, breached an implied contract, violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (and other states’ similar laws) and are seeking damages including declaratory relief, actual damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, remedial action, pre and post judgment interest, and other relief as available. The cases are as follows: Christina Moyer v. Michaels Stores, Inc. was filed on January 27, 2014; Michael and Jessica Gouwens v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 29, 2014; Nancy Maize and Jessica Gordon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on February 21, 2014; and Daniel Ripes v. Michaels Stores, Inc. was filed on March 14, 2014. All four of these cases were filed in the United States District Court-Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. A case, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 18, 2014, but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 11, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint. On April 16, 2014, an order was entered consolidating the current actions. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. In addition, payment card companies and associations may require us to reimburse them for unauthorized card charges and costs to replace cards and may also impose fines or penalties in connection with the Data Breach, and enforcement authorities may also impose fines or other remedies against us. We have also incurred other costs associated with the Data Breach, including legal fees, investigative fees, costs of communications with customers and credit monitoring services provided to our customers. In addition, state and federal agencies, including the State Attorneys General and the Federal Trade Commission may investigate events related to the Data Breach, including how it occurred, its consequences and our responses. Although we intend to cooperate in these investigations, we may be subject to fines or other obligations, which may have an adverse effect on how we operate our business and our results of operations. While a loss from these matters is reasonably possible, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses because our investigation into the matter is ongoing, the proceedings remain in the early stages, alleged damages have not been specified, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class if certified, and there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved. General In addition to the litigation discussed above, we are now, and may be in the future, 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 $9 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 6. 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 1, 2014.

Employee claims

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 class action proceeding on behalf of themselves and certain former and current store managers employed by Michaels 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. On December 3, 2013, the Superior Court entered an Order certifying a class of approximately 200 members. The Company subsequently successfully removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California and on May 8, 2014, the class was de-certified. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. We do not believe the resolution of the lawsuits will have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements.

Consumer class action claims

Data security incident

Five putative class actions were filed relating to our recent Data Breach. The plaintiffs generally allege that the Company failed to secure and safeguard customers’ private information including credit and debit card information and as such, breached an implied contract, violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (and other states’ similar laws) and are seeking damages including declaratory relief, actual damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, remedial action, pre and post judgment interest, and other relief as available. The cases are as follows: Christina Moyer v. Michaels Stores, Inc. was filed on January 27, 2014; Michael and Jessica Gouwens v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 29, 2014; Nancy Maize and Jessica Gordon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on February 21, 2014; and Daniel Ripes v. Michaels Stores, Inc. was filed on March 14, 2014. All four of these cases were filed in the United States District Court-Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. A case, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 18, 2014, but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 11, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint. On April 16, 2014, an order was entered consolidating the current actions. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

In addition, payment card companies and associations may require us to reimburse them for unauthorized card charges and costs to replace cards and may also impose fines or penalties in connection with the Data Breach, and enforcement authorities may also impose fines or other remedies against us. We have also incurred other costs associated with the Data Breach, including legal fees, investigative fees, costs of communications with customers and credit monitoring services provided to our customers. In addition, state and federal agencies, including the State Attorneys General and the Federal Trade Commission may investigate events related to the Data Breach, including how it occurred, its consequences and our responses. Although we intend to cooperate in these investigations, we may be subject to fines or other obligations, which may have an adverse effect on how we operate our business and our results of operations.

While a loss from these matters is reasonably possible, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses because our investigation into the matter is ongoing, the proceedings remain in the early stages, alleged damages have not been specified, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class if certified, and there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved.

General

In addition to the litigation discussed above, we are now, and may be in the future, 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 $9 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.