Legal Matters	3 Months Ended
May 02, 2015
Legal Matters
Legal Matters	14. Legal Matters On July 30, 2013, Matthew B. Johnson, et al., on behalf of themselves and all Ohio residents similarly situated (the “Johnson Plaintiffs”), filed a putative class action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern District (Case No. 2:13-cv-756). The Complaint alleges, among other things, deceptive sales and marketing practices by Jos. A. Bank relating to its use of the words “free” and “regular price.” The Complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and costs and disbursements (including attorneys’ fees). Upon the motion of Jos. A. Bank, the U.S. District Court dismissed the Complaint, without prejudice, and the Johnson Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the same U.S. District Court making substantially the same allegations as in the original Complaint. On February 21, 2014, Jos. A. Bank filed a motion to dismiss and, on August 19, 2014, the Court dismissed the class claims and certain other breach of contract claims. We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In December 2013, Jos. A. Bank received a subpoena from the Ohio Attorney General requiring the production of certain information relating to its advertising and marketing practices. Jos. A. Bank produced information in response to the subpoena, cooperated with further information requests and is having ongoing communications with the Ohio Attorney General’s office. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. On July 9, 2014, David Lucas and Eric Salerno, on behalf of themselves and all California residents similarly situated, filed a putative class action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S. District Court for Southern California (Case No. ‘14CV1631LAB JLB). The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Jos. A. Bank violated the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act with its comparative price advertising, price discounts and free apparel promotions. The Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as a class action, permanent injunction, actual and compensatory damages, restitution including disgorgement of profits and unjust enrichment, costs and attorney fees. We intend to vigorously defend the case. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, we are involved in various routine legal proceedings, including ongoing litigation, incidental to the conduct of our business. Management does not believe that any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

14. Legal Matters

On July 30, 2013, Matthew B. Johnson, et al., on behalf of themselves and all Ohio residents similarly situated (the “Johnson Plaintiffs”), filed a putative class action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern District (Case No. 2:13-cv-756). The Complaint alleges, among other things, deceptive sales and marketing practices by Jos. A. Bank relating to its use of the words “free” and “regular price.” The Complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and costs and disbursements (including attorneys’ fees). Upon the motion of Jos. A. Bank, the U.S. District Court dismissed the Complaint, without prejudice, and the Johnson Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the same U.S. District Court making substantially the same allegations as in the original Complaint. On February 21, 2014, Jos. A. Bank filed a motion to dismiss and, on August 19, 2014, the Court dismissed the class claims and certain other breach of contract claims. We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In December 2013, Jos. A. Bank received a subpoena from the Ohio Attorney General requiring the production of certain information relating to its advertising and marketing practices. Jos. A. Bank produced information in response to the subpoena, cooperated with further information requests and is having ongoing communications with the Ohio Attorney General’s office. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On July 9, 2014, David Lucas and Eric Salerno, on behalf of themselves and all California residents similarly situated, filed a putative class action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S. District Court for Southern California (Case No. ‘14CV1631LAB JLB). The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Jos. A. Bank violated the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act with its comparative price advertising, price discounts and free apparel promotions. The Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as a class action, permanent injunction, actual and compensatory damages, restitution including disgorgement of profits and unjust enrichment, costs and attorney fees. We intend to vigorously defend the case. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In addition, we are involved in various routine legal proceedings, including ongoing litigation, incidental to the conduct of our business. Management does not believe that any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.