Commitments and contingencies	9 Months Ended
Oct. 28, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	Commitments and contingencies Legal proceedings Employment practices As previously reported, in March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the “Claimants”) filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification motion was held in late February 2014. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants’ disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date of trial for the Claimants’ compensation claims and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants’ promotion claims. The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants’ motion to certify a disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII, and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay Act. On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants’ emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015. Claimants’ motion was granted in part and denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants’ Motion for Reconsideration on March 4, 2015. Claimants’ reply was filed on March 16, 2015. Claimants’ Motion was denied in an order issued April 27, 2015. SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator’s Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015. Claimants’ opposition was filed on March 23, 2015 and SJI’s reply was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI’s motion was heard on May 4, 2015. On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted SJI’s Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator’s Class Certification Award in part and denied it in part. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Claimants filed their opposition on December 2, 2015. On December 3, 2015, SJI filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI’s Notice of Appeal of the Southern District’s November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order. The arbitrator issued an order denying SJI’s Motion to Stay on February 22, 2016. SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with the Second Circuit on March 16, 2016. The matter was fully briefed and oral argument was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on November 2, 2016. On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in the AAA Claimants’ Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its opposition on May 12, 2015. Claimants’ reply was filed on May 22, 2015. Claimants’ motion was granted on June 15, 2015. Claimants filed Claimants’ Motion for Conditional Certification of Claimants’ Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice on March 6, 2015. SJI’s opposition was filed on May 1, 2015. Claimants filed their reply on June 5, 2015. The arbitrator heard oral argument on Claimants’ Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on February 29, 2016, issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award and Order Re Claimants’ Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, conditionally certifying Claimants’ Equal Pay Act claims as a collective action, and tolling the statute of limitations on EPA claims to October 16, 2003 to ninety days after notice issues to the putative members of the collective action. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court’s Consideration Of Respondent’s Motion To Vacate Arbitrator’s Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants’ Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 10, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court’s Resolution Of Sterling’s Motion To Vacate Arbitrator’s Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants’ Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016. Claimants filed their opposition on April 4, 2016. The arbitrator denied SJI’s Motion on April 5, 2016. On March 23, 2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator’s Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants’ Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period. Claimants filed their opposition brief on April 11, 2016, SJI filed its reply on April 20, 2016, and oral argument was heard on SJI’s Motion on May 11, 2016. SJI’s Motion was denied on May 22, 2016. On May 31, 2016, SJI filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff’s opinion and order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. SJI’s brief was filed September 13, 2016, and Claimants’ brief was filed on December 13, 2016, SJI filed its reply brief on January 10, 2017, and oral argument was heard on May 9, 2017. On June 1, 2017 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed SJI’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an order amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration. The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5, 2016, and ordered into effect the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016. Claimants’ opposition was filed on June 3, 2016. The matter was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on July 22, 2016. The motion was granted in part on January 27, 2017. Notice to EPA collective action members was issued on May 3, 2016, and the opt-in period for these notice recipients closed on August 1, 2016. Approximately 10,314 current and former employees submitted consent forms to opt in to the collective action; however, some have withdrawn their consents. The number of valid consents is disputed and yet to be determined. SJI believes the number of valid consents to be approximately 9,124. On July 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its unanimous Summary Order that held that the absent class members “never consented” to the Arbitrator determining the permissibility of class arbitration under the agreements, and remanded the matter to the District Court to determine whether the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by certifying the Title VII class that contained absent class members who had not opted in the litigation. On August 7, 2017, SJI filed its Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class Determination Award relative to absent class members with the District Court. The matter was fully briefed and an oral argument was heard on October 16, 2017. The parties await a ruling. On November 9, 2017, Claimants filed in the arbitration disclosures identifying witnesses, exhibits and deposition designations to be used at trial. SJI’s disclosures are due December 7, 2017. On November 10, 2017 SJI filed in the arbitration motions for summary judgment, and for decertification, of Claimants’ Equal Pay Act and Title VII promotions claims. Claimants’ opposition briefs to these motions are due for filing on December 8, 2017. We anticipate trial in the arbitration to begin the week of April 16, 2018, or as soon thereafter as the Arbitrator’s schedule permits. SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and has been defending the case vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. Also, as previously reported, on September 23, 2008, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a lawsuit against SJI in the US District Court for the Western District of New York. This suit was settled on May 5, 2017, as further described below. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that SJI engaged in intentional and disparate impact gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female retail store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present. The EEOC asserted claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female employees subjected to these alleged practices. Non-expert fact discovery closed in mid-May 2013. In September 2013, SJI made a motion for partial summary judgment on procedural grounds, which was referred to a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge heard oral arguments on the summary judgment motion in December 2013. On January 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report, Recommendation and Order, recommending that the Court grant SJI’s motion for partial summary judgment and dismiss the EEOC’s claims in their entirety. The EEOC filed its objections to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling and SJI filed its response thereto. The District Court Judge heard oral arguments on the EEOC’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling on March 7, 2014 and on March 11, 2014 entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice. On May 12, 2014, the EEOC filed its Notice of Appeal of the District Court Judge’s dismissal of the action to United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties fully briefed the appeal and oral argument occurred on May 5, 2015. On September 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision vacating the District Court’s order and remanding the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. SJI filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and En Banc Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was denied on December 1, 2015. On December 4, 2015, SJI filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit a Motion Of Appellee Sterling Jewelers Inc. For Stay Of Mandate Pending Petition For Writ Of Certiorari. The Motion was granted by the Second Circuit on December 10, 2015. SJI filed a Petition For Writ Of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States on April 29, 2016, which was denied. The case was remanded to the Western District of New York and on November 2, 2016, the Court issued a case scheduling order. On January 25, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion to extend case scheduling order deadlines. The motion was granted on January 27, 2017. On May 5, 2017 the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York approved and entered the Consent Decree jointly proposed by the EEOC and SJI, resolving all of the EEOC’s claims against SJI in this litigation for various injunctive relief including but not limited to the appointment of an employment practices expert to review specific policies and practices, a compliance officer to be employed by SJI, as well as obligations relative to training, notices, reporting and record-keeping. The Consent Decree does not require an outside third party monitor or require any monetary payment. The duration of the Consent Decree is three years and three months, expiring on August 4, 2020. Prior to the Acquisition, Zale Corporation was a defendant in three class action lawsuits: Tessa Hodge v. Zale Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was filed on July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern District of California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. All three cases include allegations that Zale Corporation violated various wage and hour labor laws. Relief was sought on behalf of current and former Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation’s employees. The lawsuits sought to recover damages, penalties and attorneys’ fees as a result of the alleged violations. Without admitting or conceding any liability, the Company reached an agreement to settle the Hodge and Roberts matters for an immaterial amount. Final approval of the settlement was granted on March 9, 2015 and the settlement was implemented. On December 28, 2016, the Company participated in a mediation of the Tapia class action. The mediation resulted in a settlement agreement. The settlement resolved various California wage and hour claims involving all current and former employees of Zale Delaware Inc. d/b/a Zale Corporation who were designated as nonexempt and worked in California at any time from July 3, 2010 to present. The Court granted final approval of the settlement on July 14, 2017. In August 2017, the settlement was funded and the settlement funds were disbursed. On May 13, 2017, the Company received notice that a Class Action Complaint against Sterling Jewelers Inc. and Signet Jewelers Ltd. was filed by Veronica Masten in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging violations of various wage and hour labor laws. In Masten, Plaintiff seeks to certify two separate classes comprising all current and former hourly-paid employees employed by in jewelry stores in California, and all current and former California employees that received a wage statement “during the applicable liability period.” The Company was served with the Class Acton Complaint on May 16, 2017. The Company filed its Answer to the Complaint on June 13, 2017. On June 14, 2017, the Company removed this matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. A joint scheduling conference was held on September 18, 2017, during which the Court scheduled pretrial dates and trial for May 2019. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. SJI denies the allegations of the Plaintiff and will defend the case vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation can be estimated. Shareholder Action In August 2016, two alleged Company shareholders each filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its then-current Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Financial Officer (Nos. 16-cv-6728 and 16-cv-6861, the “S.D.N.Y. cases”). On September 16, 2016, the Court consolidated the S.D.N.Y. cases under case number 16-cv-6728. On April 3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of persons that acquired the Company’s securities on or between August 29, 2013, and February 27, 2017, naming as defendants the Company, its then-current and former Chief Executive Officers, and its current and former Chief Financial Officers. The second amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the Company’s business and earnings by (i) failing to disclose that the Company was allegedly having issues ensuring the safety of customers’ jewelry while in the Company’s custody for repairs, which allegedly damaged customer confidence; (ii) making misleading statements about the Company’s credit portfolio; and (iii) failing to disclose reports of sexual harassment allegations that were raised by claimants in an ongoing pay and promotion gender discrimination class arbitration (the “Arbitration”). The second amended complaint alleged that the Company’s share price was artificially inflated as a result of the alleged misrepresentations and sought unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees. In March 2017, two other alleged Company shareholders each filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and its then-current and former Chief Executive Officers (Nos. 17-cv-875 and 17-cv-923, the “N.D. Tex. cases”). Those complaints were nearly identical to each other and alleged that the defendants’ statements concerning the Arbitration violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The N.D. Tex. cases were subsequently transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated with the S.D.N.Y. cases. On July 27, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel in the consolidated action. On August 3, 2017, the Court ordered the lead plaintiff to file a third amended complaint by September 29, 2017. The defendants must answer or otherwise respond to the third amended complaint by December 1, 2017. On September 1, 2017, Josanne Aungst filed a putative shareholder derivative action entitled Aungst v. Light, et al., No. CV-2017-3665, in the Court of Common Pleas for Summit County Ohio. The complaint in this action, which purports to have been brought by Ms. Aungst on behalf of the Company, names certain current and former directors and officers of the Company as defendants and alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement. The complaint challenges certain public disclosures and conduct relating to the allegations that were raised by the claimants in the Arbitration. The complaint also alleges that the Company’s share price was artificially inflated as a result of alleged misrepresentations and omissions. The complaint seeks money damages on behalf of the Company, changes to the Company’s corporate governance, and other equitable relief, as well as plaintiff’s legal fees and costs. The Company and Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on October 30, 2017. The Company believes that the claims brought in these shareholder actions are without merit and cannot estimate a range of potential liability, if any, at this time. Regulatory Matters On September 6, 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) notified Signet that, in accordance with the CFPB’s discretionary Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise (“NORA”) process, the CFPB’s Office of Enforcement is considering recommending that the CFPB take legal action against Signet, alleging that Signet violated §§ 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536, and the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and its implementing regulation, relating to in-store: credit practices, promotions, and payment protection products. The purpose of a NORA letter is to provide a party being investigated an opportunity to present its position to the CFPB before an enforcement action is recommended or commenced. This notice stems from an inquiry that commenced in late 2016 when Signet received and responded to an initial Civil Investigative Demand. Signet has cooperated and continues to fully cooperate with the CFPB. On September 27, 2017, Signet submitted a response to the NORA letter to the CFPB, which stated its belief that the potential claims lack merit. The Attorney General for the State of New York (“NYAG”) is investigating similar issues under its jurisdiction. Signet has been cooperating with the NYAG’s investigation which remains ongoing. Signet continues to believe that its acts and practices relating to the matters under investigation are lawful. Signet is currently unable to predict the timing or outcome of the NORA process or NYAG investigation and no possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the investigations is able to be estimated. In the ordinary course of business, Signet may be subject, from time to time, to various other proceedings, lawsuits, disputes or claims incidental to its business, which the Company believes are not significant to Signet’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Commitments and contingencies

Legal proceedings

Employment practices

As previously reported, in March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the “Claimants”) filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification motion was held in late February 2014. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants’ disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date of trial for the Claimants’ compensation claims and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants’ promotion claims. The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants’ motion to certify a disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII, and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay Act. On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants’ emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015. Claimants’ motion was granted in part and denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants’ Motion for Reconsideration on March 4, 2015. Claimants’ reply was filed on March 16, 2015. Claimants’ Motion was denied in an order issued April 27, 2015. SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator’s Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015. Claimants’ opposition was filed on March 23, 2015 and SJI’s reply was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI’s motion was heard on May 4, 2015. On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted SJI’s Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator’s Class Certification Award in part and denied it in part. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Claimants filed their opposition on December 2, 2015. On December 3, 2015, SJI filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI’s Notice of Appeal of the Southern District’s November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order. The arbitrator issued an order denying SJI’s Motion to Stay on February 22, 2016. SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with the Second Circuit on March 16, 2016. The matter was fully briefed and oral argument was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on November 2, 2016. On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in the AAA Claimants’ Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its opposition on May 12, 2015. Claimants’ reply was filed on May 22, 2015. Claimants’ motion was granted on June 15, 2015. Claimants filed Claimants’ Motion for Conditional Certification of Claimants’ Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice on March 6, 2015. SJI’s opposition was filed on May 1, 2015. Claimants filed their reply on June 5, 2015. The arbitrator heard oral argument on Claimants’ Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on February 29, 2016, issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award and Order Re Claimants’ Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, conditionally certifying Claimants’ Equal Pay Act claims as a collective action, and tolling the statute of limitations on EPA claims to October 16, 2003 to ninety days after notice issues to the putative members of the collective action. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court’s Consideration Of Respondent’s Motion To Vacate Arbitrator’s Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants’ Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 10, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court’s Resolution Of Sterling’s Motion To Vacate Arbitrator’s Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants’ Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016. Claimants filed their opposition on April 4, 2016. The arbitrator denied SJI’s Motion on April 5, 2016. On March 23, 2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator’s Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants’ Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period. Claimants filed their opposition brief on April 11, 2016, SJI filed its reply on April 20, 2016, and oral argument was heard on SJI’s Motion on May 11, 2016. SJI’s Motion was denied on May 22, 2016. On May 31, 2016, SJI filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff’s opinion and order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. SJI’s brief was filed September 13, 2016, and Claimants’ brief was filed on December 13, 2016, SJI filed its reply brief on January 10, 2017, and oral argument was heard on May 9, 2017. On June 1, 2017 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed SJI’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an order amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration. The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5, 2016, and ordered into effect the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016. Claimants’ opposition was filed on June 3, 2016. The matter was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on July 22, 2016. The motion was granted in part on January 27, 2017. Notice to EPA collective action members was issued on May 3, 2016, and the opt-in period for these notice recipients closed on August 1, 2016. Approximately 10,314 current and former employees submitted consent forms to opt in to the collective action; however, some have withdrawn their consents. The number of valid consents is disputed and yet to be determined. SJI believes the number of valid consents to be approximately 9,124. On July 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its unanimous Summary Order that held that the absent class members “never consented” to the Arbitrator determining the permissibility of class arbitration under the agreements, and remanded the matter to the District Court to determine whether the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by certifying the Title VII class that contained absent class members who had not opted in the litigation. On August 7, 2017, SJI filed its Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class Determination Award relative to absent class members with the District Court. The matter was fully briefed and an oral argument was heard on October 16, 2017. The parties await a ruling. On November 9, 2017, Claimants filed in the arbitration disclosures identifying witnesses, exhibits and deposition designations to be used at trial. SJI’s disclosures are due December 7, 2017. On November 10, 2017 SJI filed in the arbitration motions for summary judgment, and for decertification, of Claimants’ Equal Pay Act and Title VII promotions claims. Claimants’ opposition briefs to these motions are due for filing on December 8, 2017. We anticipate trial in the arbitration to begin the week of April 16, 2018, or as soon thereafter as the Arbitrator’s schedule permits.

SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and has been defending the case vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated.

Also, as previously reported, on September 23, 2008, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a lawsuit against SJI in the US District Court for the Western District of New York. This suit was settled on May 5, 2017, as further described below. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that SJI engaged in intentional and disparate impact gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female retail store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present. The EEOC asserted claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female employees subjected to these alleged practices. Non-expert fact discovery closed in mid-May 2013. In September 2013, SJI made a motion for partial summary judgment on procedural grounds, which was referred to a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge heard oral arguments on the summary judgment motion in December 2013. On January 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report, Recommendation and Order, recommending that the Court grant SJI’s motion for partial summary judgment and dismiss the EEOC’s claims in their entirety. The EEOC filed its objections to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling and SJI filed its response thereto. The District Court Judge heard oral arguments on the EEOC’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling on March 7, 2014 and on March 11, 2014 entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice. On May 12, 2014, the EEOC filed its Notice of Appeal of the District Court Judge’s dismissal of the action to United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties fully briefed the appeal and oral argument occurred on May 5, 2015. On September 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision vacating the District Court’s order and remanding the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. SJI filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and En Banc Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was denied on December 1, 2015. On December 4, 2015, SJI filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit a Motion Of Appellee Sterling Jewelers Inc. For Stay Of Mandate Pending Petition For Writ Of Certiorari. The Motion was granted by the Second Circuit on December 10, 2015. SJI filed a Petition For Writ Of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States on April 29, 2016, which was denied. The case was remanded to the Western District of New York and on November 2, 2016, the Court issued a case scheduling order. On January 25, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion to extend case scheduling order deadlines. The motion was granted on January 27, 2017. On May 5, 2017 the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York approved and entered the Consent Decree jointly proposed by the EEOC and SJI, resolving all of the EEOC’s claims against SJI in this litigation for various injunctive relief including but not limited to the appointment of an employment practices expert to review specific policies and practices, a compliance officer to be employed by SJI, as well as obligations relative to training, notices, reporting and record-keeping. The Consent Decree does not require an outside third party monitor or require any monetary payment. The duration of the Consent Decree is three years and three months, expiring on August 4, 2020.

Prior to the Acquisition, Zale Corporation was a defendant in three class action lawsuits: Tessa Hodge v. Zale Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was filed on July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern District of California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. All three cases include allegations that Zale Corporation violated various wage and hour labor laws. Relief was sought on behalf of current and former Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation’s employees. The lawsuits sought to recover damages, penalties and attorneys’ fees as a result of the alleged violations. Without admitting or conceding any liability, the Company reached an agreement to settle the Hodge and Roberts matters for an immaterial amount. Final approval of the settlement was granted on March 9, 2015 and the settlement was implemented. On December 28, 2016, the Company participated in a mediation of the Tapia class action. The mediation resulted in a settlement agreement. The settlement resolved various California wage and hour claims involving all current and former employees of Zale Delaware Inc. d/b/a Zale Corporation who were designated as nonexempt and worked in California at any time from July 3, 2010 to present. The Court granted final approval of the settlement on July 14, 2017. In August 2017, the settlement was funded and the settlement funds were disbursed.

On May 13, 2017, the Company received notice that a Class Action Complaint against Sterling Jewelers Inc. and Signet Jewelers Ltd. was filed by Veronica Masten in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging violations of various wage and hour labor laws. In Masten, Plaintiff seeks to certify two separate classes comprising all current and former hourly-paid employees employed by in jewelry stores in California, and all current and former California employees that received a wage statement “during the applicable liability period.” The Company was served with the Class Acton Complaint on May 16, 2017. The Company filed its Answer to the Complaint on June 13, 2017. On June 14, 2017, the Company removed this matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. A joint scheduling conference was held on September 18, 2017, during which the Court scheduled pretrial dates and trial for May 2019. The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

SJI denies the allegations of the Plaintiff and will defend the case vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation can be estimated.

Shareholder Action

In August 2016, two alleged Company shareholders each filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its then-current Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Financial Officer (Nos. 16-cv-6728 and 16-cv-6861, the “S.D.N.Y. cases”). On September 16, 2016, the Court consolidated the S.D.N.Y. cases under case number 16-cv-6728. On April 3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of persons that acquired the Company’s securities on or between August 29, 2013, and February 27, 2017, naming as defendants the Company, its then-current and former Chief Executive Officers, and its current and former Chief Financial Officers. The second amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the Company’s business and earnings by (i) failing to disclose that the Company was allegedly having issues ensuring the safety of customers’ jewelry while in the Company’s custody for repairs, which allegedly damaged customer confidence; (ii) making misleading statements about the Company’s credit portfolio; and (iii) failing to disclose reports of sexual harassment allegations that were raised by claimants in an ongoing pay and promotion gender discrimination class arbitration (the “Arbitration”). The second amended complaint alleged that the Company’s share price was artificially inflated as a result of the alleged misrepresentations and sought unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees.

In March 2017, two other alleged Company shareholders each filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and its then-current and former Chief Executive Officers (Nos. 17-cv-875 and 17-cv-923, the “N.D. Tex. cases”). Those complaints were nearly identical to each other and alleged that the defendants’ statements concerning the Arbitration violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The N.D. Tex. cases were subsequently transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated with the S.D.N.Y. cases. On July 27, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel in the consolidated action. On August 3, 2017, the Court ordered the lead plaintiff to file a third amended complaint by September 29, 2017. The defendants must answer or otherwise respond to the third amended complaint by December 1, 2017.

On September 1, 2017, Josanne Aungst filed a putative shareholder derivative action entitled Aungst v. Light, et al., No. CV-2017-3665, in the Court of Common Pleas for Summit County Ohio. The complaint in this action, which purports to have been brought by Ms. Aungst on behalf of the Company, names certain current and former directors and officers of the Company as defendants and alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement. The complaint challenges certain public disclosures and conduct relating to the allegations that were raised by the claimants in the Arbitration. The complaint also alleges that the Company’s share price was artificially inflated as a result of alleged misrepresentations and omissions. The complaint seeks money damages on behalf of the Company, changes to the Company’s corporate governance, and other equitable relief, as well as plaintiff’s legal fees and costs. The Company and Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on October 30, 2017.

The Company believes that the claims brought in these shareholder actions are without merit and cannot estimate a range of potential liability, if any, at this time.

Regulatory Matters

On September 6, 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) notified Signet that, in accordance with the CFPB’s discretionary Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise (“NORA”) process, the CFPB’s Office of Enforcement is considering recommending that the CFPB take legal action against Signet, alleging that Signet violated §§ 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536, and the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and its implementing regulation, relating to in-store: credit practices, promotions, and payment protection products. The purpose of a NORA letter is to provide a party being investigated an opportunity to present its position to the CFPB before an enforcement action is recommended or commenced. This notice stems from an inquiry that commenced in late 2016 when Signet received and responded to an initial Civil Investigative Demand. Signet has cooperated and continues to fully cooperate with the CFPB. On September 27, 2017, Signet submitted a response to the NORA letter to the CFPB, which stated its belief that the potential claims lack merit.

The Attorney General for the State of New York (“NYAG”) is investigating similar issues under its jurisdiction. Signet has been cooperating with the NYAG’s investigation which remains ongoing.

Signet continues to believe that its acts and practices relating to the matters under investigation are lawful. Signet is currently unable to predict the timing or outcome of the NORA process or NYAG investigation and no possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the investigations is able to be estimated.

In the ordinary course of business, Signet may be subject, from time to time, to various other proceedings, lawsuits, disputes or claims incidental to its business, which the Company believes are not significant to Signet’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.