Contingencies	3 Months Ended
May 05, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES Shareholder and Derivative Matters 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. The lawsuits were consolidated, and, on August 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint captioned In re Big Lots, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 2:12-cv-00445 (S.D. Ohio) (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”), which generally alleged 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 asserted claims under Ohio law for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets and corporate waste and sought declaratory relief and disgorgement to us of proceeds from any wrongful sales of our common shares, plus attorneys’ fees and expenses. Following the Court’s April 14, 2015 ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 3, 2015, asserting a single claim for corporate waste against Jeffrey Berger, Steven Fishman, David Kollat, Brenda Lauderback, Philip Mallott, Russell Solt, and Dennis Tishkoff. On October 18, 2013, a different shareholder filed an additional derivative lawsuit captioned Brosz v. Fishman et al., No. 1:13-cv-00753 (S.D. Ohio) (the “Brosz Action”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against us and each of the current and former outside directors and executive officers originally named in the 2012 shareholder derivative lawsuit. The plaintiff’s complaint generally alleged 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 complaint asserted claims under Ohio law for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste and misappropriation of trade secrets and sought damages, injunctive relief and disgorgement to us of proceeds from any wrongful sales of our common shares, plus attorneys’ fees and expenses. Following the Court’s April 14, 2015 ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 17, 2015, asserting a single claim for corporate waste. On December 29, 2016, the Court ordered that the Brosz Action be consolidated with the Consolidated Derivative Action. On December 14, 2017, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Derivative Settlement with the Court. On April 6, 2018, the Court issued an Order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement and setting a Fairness Hearing for July 26, 2018. On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Willis, et al. v. Big Lots, Inc., et al., 2:12-cv-00604 (S.D. Ohio) 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 asserted claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and sought 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. Effective May 16, 2018, the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement. On May 18, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement with the Court. That motion remains pending with the Court. In connection with the settlement of the Willis class action and the Consolidated Derivative Action, we recorded $34.5 million in other current assets and current insurance reserves for the estimated payout for this matter that is covered by insurance contracts. During the first quarter of 2018, we recorded a net charge of $3.5 million related to the expected cost of the settlements for the funds in excess of our insurance coverage. Other Matters 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

Shareholder and Derivative Matters

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. The lawsuits were consolidated, and, on August 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint captioned In re Big Lots, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 2:12-cv-00445 (S.D. Ohio) (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”), which generally alleged 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 asserted claims under Ohio law for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets and corporate waste and sought declaratory relief and disgorgement to us of proceeds from any wrongful sales of our common shares, plus attorneys’ fees and expenses. Following the Court’s April 14, 2015 ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 3, 2015, asserting a single claim for corporate waste against Jeffrey Berger, Steven Fishman, David Kollat, Brenda Lauderback, Philip Mallott, Russell Solt, and Dennis Tishkoff.

On October 18, 2013, a different shareholder filed an additional derivative lawsuit captioned Brosz v. Fishman et al., No. 1:13-cv-00753 (S.D. Ohio) (the “Brosz Action”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against us and each of the current and former outside directors and executive officers originally named in the 2012 shareholder derivative lawsuit. The plaintiff’s complaint generally alleged 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 complaint asserted claims under Ohio law for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste and misappropriation of trade secrets and sought damages, injunctive relief and disgorgement to us of proceeds from any wrongful sales of our common shares, plus attorneys’ fees and expenses. Following the Court’s April 14, 2015 ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 17, 2015, asserting a single claim for corporate waste. On December 29, 2016, the Court ordered that the Brosz Action be consolidated with the Consolidated Derivative Action.

On December 14, 2017, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Derivative Settlement with the Court. On April 6, 2018, the Court issued an Order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement and setting a Fairness Hearing for July 26, 2018.

On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Willis, et al. v. Big Lots, Inc., et al., 2:12-cv-00604 (S.D. Ohio) 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 asserted claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and sought 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.

Effective May 16, 2018, the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement. On May 18, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement with the Court. That motion remains pending with the Court.

In connection with the settlement of the Willis class action and the Consolidated Derivative Action, we recorded $34.5 million in other current assets and current insurance reserves for the estimated payout for this matter that is covered by insurance contracts. During the first quarter of 2018, we recorded a net charge of $3.5 million related to the expected cost of the settlements for the funds in excess of our insurance coverage.

Other Matters

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.