Legal Matters	9 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2015
Legal Matters
Legal Matters	16. 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, certification of the complaint as a class action, compensatory damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and costs and disbursements (including attorneys’ fees). On August 19, 2014, the Court dismissed the class claims and certain other breach of contract claims. On June 9, 2015, the Court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief. Based on the two favorable court rulings, we do not believe that this case 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 had ongoing communications with the Ohio Attorney General’s office. On October 9, 2015, the Attorney General’s office issued a letter advising the Company that it was taking no further action at this time. We consider the matter closed. 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 currently 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.

16. 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, certification of the complaint as a class action, compensatory damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and costs and disbursements (including attorneys’ fees). On August 19, 2014, the Court dismissed the class claims and certain other breach of contract claims. On June 9, 2015, the Court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief. Based on the two favorable court rulings, we do not believe that this case 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 had ongoing communications with the Ohio Attorney General’s office. On October 9, 2015, the Attorney General’s office issued a letter advising the Company that it was taking no further action at this time. We consider the matter closed.

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 currently 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.