Litigation	6 Months Ended
Jul. 29, 2017
Litigation [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation The Company is involved from time to time in various claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business, including claims related to products, product warranties, intellectual property and consumer protection matters. On June 26, 2017, a purported class action case was filed by an individual, William Horan, against both the Company and Invicta Watch Co. of America, Inc. (“Invicta”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, asserting claims under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and New York General Business Law Section 349. The claims relate to the warranty provided with the Invicta watch that the plaintiff allegedly purchased through the Company. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached the warranty, failed to disclose material information and\or made false representations concerning the warranty. This case is pled as a putative class action, which means that the plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all other similarly situated individuals who purchased an Invicta watch through the Company. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, injunctive relief, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the court might find just and proper. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of this case and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action. On June 29, 2017, a purported class action case was filed by an individual, Betty Gregory, against the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, asserting claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The plaintiff alleges that the Company unlawfully contacted her on her cellular telephone without her prior express consent. This case is pled as a putative class action, and the plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all other individuals who received telephone calls similar to the ones she allegedly received from the Company and the Company's third-party collection vendors. The TCPA provides for recovery of actual damages or $500 for each violation, whichever is greater. If it is determined that a defendant acted willfully or knowingly in violating the TCPA, the amount of the award may be increased by up to three times the amount provided above. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, injunctive relief, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the court might find just and proper. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of this case and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.

Litigation

The Company is involved from time to time in various claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business, including claims related to products, product warranties, intellectual property and consumer protection matters.

On June 26, 2017, a purported class action case was filed by an individual, William Horan, against both the Company and Invicta Watch Co. of America, Inc. (“Invicta”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, asserting claims under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and New York General Business Law Section 349. The claims relate to the warranty provided with the Invicta watch that the plaintiff allegedly purchased through the Company. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached the warranty, failed to disclose material information and\or made false representations concerning the warranty. This case is pled as a putative class action, which means that the plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all other similarly situated individuals who purchased an Invicta watch through the Company. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, injunctive relief, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the court might find just and proper. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of this case and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.

On June 29, 2017, a purported class action case was filed by an individual, Betty Gregory, against the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, asserting claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The plaintiff alleges that the Company unlawfully contacted her on her cellular telephone without her prior express consent. This case is pled as a putative class action, and the plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all other individuals who received telephone calls similar to the ones she allegedly received from the Company and the Company's third-party collection vendors. The TCPA provides for recovery of actual damages or $500 for each violation, whichever is greater. If it is determined that a defendant acted willfully or knowingly in violating the TCPA, the amount of the award may be increased by up to three times the amount provided above. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, injunctive relief, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the court might find just and proper. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of this case and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.