Contingencies	3 Months Ended
May 04, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES In 1998, an action was filed against us in the District Court, 224th Judicial District, in Bexar County, Texas (“State Court”) by a plaintiff claiming she was injured when she fell in one of our stores (“Rivera matter”). The Rivera matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (“Federal Court”) and the claim was fully litigated. Ultimately, the Federal Court granted summary judgment in our favor in January 2000. The plaintiff re-filed the same complaint in April 2000 in the State Court and then obtained a default judgment against us on June 20, 2000 in the amount of approximately $1.5 million plus post-judgment interest. No effort was made to collect on this judgment by the plaintiff until February 2009, when we were served with a writ of execution of judgment. We filed a petition for a bill of review with the State Court. Since that time, the Federal Court issued an order reflecting that its January 2000 order was a summary judgment with prejudice in our favor. Notwithstanding the Federal Court's order, the State Court rendered a summary judgment decision in the plaintiff's favor. We appealed the State Court's decision and separately asked the Federal Court to issue an injunction against the State Court's proceedings. On March 25, 2010, the Federal Court denied our motion for an injunction and denied the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the Federal Court's order confirming that it granted summary judgment with prejudice. On April 6, 2010, the plaintiff appealed the Federal Court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On June 22, 2010, the Texas Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in our appeal of the State Court's decision. On November 3, 2010, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the State Court ruling. On December 17, 2010, we filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of Texas. On July 15, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Federal Court's decision to dismiss the Rivera matter with prejudice in our favor. On July 26, 2011, the plaintiff filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit seeking a rehearing, which petition was denied on August 17, 2011. On August 17, 2011, the plaintiff filed a brief on the merits of the Rivera matter with the Supreme Court of Texas. The Supreme Court of Texas granted our petition for review. In September 2012, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the default judgment was not void due to defects in service, but that there is evidence of extrinsic fraud and remanded the case to the State Court for a trial on the fraud issue. The State Court held a trial in April 2013, and the jury held against us thus enforcing the initial State Court judgment in favor of the plaintiff. As a result, we accrued a pretax charge of $5.1 million in the first quarter of 2013 to reflect the amount of the initial State Court judgment of approximately $1.5 million plus post-judgment interest from the June 2000 judgment through the end of the first quarter of 2013. On June 7, 2013, we filed with the State Court a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for a new trial. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this lawsuit. On May 21, May 22 and July 2, 2012, three shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against us and certain of our current and former outside directors and executive officers (Jeffrey Berger, David Kollat, Brenda Lauderback, Philip Mallott, Russell Solt, Dennis Tishkoff, Robert Claxton, Joe Cooper, Steven Fishman, Charles Haubiel, Timothy Johnson, John Martin, Norman Rankin, Paul Schroeder, Robert Segal and Steven Smart). The lawsuits were consolidated, and, on August 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, which generally alleges that the individual defendants traded in our common shares based on material, nonpublic information concerning our guidance for fiscal 2012 and the first quarter of fiscal 2012 and the director defendants failed to suspend our share repurchase program during such trading activity. The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Ohio law for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets and corporate waste and seeks declaratory relief and disgorgement to us of proceeds from any wrongful sales of our common shares, plus attorneys' fees and expenses. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and that motion is fully briefed and awaiting a decision. On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who acquired our common shares between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012. This lawsuit was filed against us, Lisa Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Fishman and Mr. Haubiel. The complaint in the putative class action generally alleges that the defendants made statements concerning our financial performance that were false or misleading. The complaint asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees and expenses. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 4, 2013, which added Mr. Johnson as a defendant, removed Ms. Bachmann as a defendant, and extended the putative class period to August 23, 2012. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the putative class action complaint. We believe that the shareholder derivative and putative class action lawsuits are without merit, and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the allegations levied in these lawsuits. While a loss from these lawsuits is reasonably possible, at this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any loss that may result or whether the lawsuits will have a material impact on our financial statements. On November 29, 2012, we received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York requesting documents relating to Mr. Fishman's trades in our common shares. We provided information in response to the subpoena in late 2012 and early 2013. Since that time, we have received no further subpoena or other request for information from the U.S. Attorney. On December 7, 2012, we received a voluntary document request from the SEC relating to our guidance for the first quarter of fiscal 2012, internal policies, trading in our common shares by our directors and officers, and the terms of employment with Mr. Fishman. We provided information in response to the SEC request in late 2012 and early 2013. On May 20, 2013, our counsel received a letter dated May 9, 2013, from the Division of Enforcement of the SEC, which stated in relevant part: “This investigation has been completed as to your client, Big Lots, against which we do not intend to recommend any enforcement action by the Commission.” On December 21, 2012, we received a letter from NYSE Regulation requesting information relating to Mr. Fishman's trades in our common shares, internal policies, and the inquiries being conducted by other bodies. We provided information in response to the NYSE Regulation request in early 2013. On April 24, 2013, NYSE Regulation made an additional request for information and we are cooperating with NYSE Regulation in connection with its request. We received a letter dated January 28, 2013, sent on behalf of a shareholder demanding that our Board of Directors investigate and take action in connection with the allegations made in the derivative and securities lawsuits described above. The shareholder indicated that he will commence a derivate lawsuit if our Board of Directors fails to take the demanded action. On March 6, 2013, our Board of Directors referred the shareholder’s letter to a committee to investigate the matter. We are involved in other legal actions and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. We currently believe that each such action and claim will be resolved without a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. However, litigation involves an element of uncertainty. Future developments could cause these actions or claims to have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

CONTINGENCIES

In 1998, an action was filed against us in the District Court, 224th Judicial District, in Bexar County, Texas (“State Court”) by a plaintiff claiming she was injured when she fell in one of our stores (“Rivera matter”). The Rivera matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (“Federal Court”) and the claim was fully litigated. Ultimately, the Federal Court granted summary judgment in our favor in January 2000. The plaintiff re-filed the same complaint in April 2000 in the State Court and then obtained a default judgment against us on June 20, 2000 in the amount of approximately $1.5 million plus post-judgment interest. No effort was made to collect on this judgment by the plaintiff until February 2009, when we were served with a writ of execution of judgment. We filed a petition for a bill of review with the State Court. Since that time, the Federal Court issued an order reflecting that its January 2000 order was a summary judgment with prejudice in our favor. Notwithstanding the Federal Court's order, the State Court rendered a summary judgment decision in the plaintiff's favor. We appealed the State Court's decision and separately asked the Federal Court to issue an injunction against the State Court's proceedings. On March 25, 2010, the Federal Court denied our motion for an injunction and denied the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the Federal Court's order confirming that it granted summary judgment with prejudice. On April 6, 2010, the plaintiff appealed the Federal Court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On June 22, 2010, the Texas Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in our appeal of the State Court's decision. On November 3, 2010, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the State Court ruling. On December 17, 2010, we filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of Texas. On July 15, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Federal Court's decision to dismiss the Rivera matter with prejudice in our favor. On July 26, 2011, the plaintiff filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit seeking a rehearing, which petition was denied on August 17, 2011. On August 17, 2011, the plaintiff filed a brief on the merits of the Rivera matter with the Supreme Court of Texas. The Supreme Court of Texas granted our petition for review. In September 2012, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the default judgment was not void due to defects in service, but that there is evidence of extrinsic fraud and remanded the case to the State Court for a trial on the fraud issue. The State Court held a trial in April 2013, and the jury held against us thus enforcing the initial State Court judgment in favor of the plaintiff. As a result, we accrued a pretax charge of $5.1 million in the first quarter of 2013 to reflect the amount of the initial State Court judgment of approximately $1.5 million plus post-judgment interest from the June 2000 judgment through the end of the first quarter of 2013. On June 7, 2013, we filed with the State Court a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for a new trial. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this lawsuit.

On May 21, May 22 and July 2, 2012, three shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against us and certain of our current and former outside directors and executive officers (Jeffrey Berger, David Kollat, Brenda Lauderback, Philip Mallott, Russell Solt, Dennis Tishkoff, Robert Claxton, Joe Cooper, Steven Fishman, Charles Haubiel, Timothy Johnson, John Martin, Norman Rankin, Paul Schroeder, Robert Segal and Steven Smart). The lawsuits were consolidated, and, on August 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, which generally alleges that the individual defendants traded in our common shares based on material, nonpublic information concerning our guidance for fiscal 2012 and the first quarter of fiscal 2012 and the director defendants failed to suspend our share repurchase program during such trading activity. The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Ohio law for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets and corporate waste and seeks declaratory relief and disgorgement to us of proceeds from any wrongful sales of our common shares, plus attorneys' fees and expenses. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and that motion is fully briefed and awaiting a decision.

On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who acquired our common shares between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012. This lawsuit was filed against us, Lisa Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Fishman and Mr. Haubiel. The complaint in the putative class action generally alleges that the defendants made statements concerning our financial performance that were false or misleading. The complaint asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees and expenses. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 4, 2013, which added Mr. Johnson as a defendant, removed Ms. Bachmann as a defendant, and extended the putative class period to August 23, 2012. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the putative class action complaint.

We believe that the shareholder derivative and putative class action lawsuits are without merit, and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the allegations levied in these lawsuits. While a loss from these lawsuits is reasonably possible, at this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any loss that may result or whether the lawsuits will have a material impact on our financial statements.

On November 29, 2012, we received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York requesting documents relating to Mr. Fishman's trades in our common shares. We provided information in response to the subpoena in late 2012 and early 2013. Since that time, we have received no further subpoena or other request for information from the U.S. Attorney.

On December 7, 2012, we received a voluntary document request from the SEC relating to our guidance for the first quarter of fiscal 2012, internal policies, trading in our common shares by our directors and officers, and the terms of employment with Mr. Fishman. We provided information in response to the SEC request in late 2012 and early 2013. On May 20, 2013, our counsel received a letter dated May 9, 2013, from the Division of Enforcement of the SEC, which stated in relevant part: “This investigation has been completed as to your client, Big Lots, against which we do not intend to recommend any enforcement action by the Commission.”

On December 21, 2012, we received a letter from NYSE Regulation requesting information relating to Mr. Fishman's trades in our common shares, internal policies, and the inquiries being conducted by other bodies. We provided information in response to the NYSE Regulation request in early 2013. On April 24, 2013, NYSE Regulation made an additional request for information and we are cooperating with NYSE Regulation in connection with its request.

We received a letter dated January 28, 2013, sent on behalf of a shareholder demanding that our Board of Directors investigate and take action in connection with the allegations made in the derivative and securities lawsuits described above. The shareholder indicated that he will commence a derivate lawsuit if our Board of Directors fails to take the demanded action. On March 6, 2013, our Board of Directors referred the shareholder’s letter to a committee to investigate the matter.

We are involved in other legal actions and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. We currently believe that each such action and claim will be resolved without a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. However, litigation involves an element of uncertainty. Future developments could cause these actions or claims to have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.