25.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved in a variety of claims, suits, investigations and proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business, including actions with respect to contracts, intellectual property, taxation, employment, benefits, securities, personal injuries and other matters. The results of these proceedings in the ordinary course of business are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

The Company records a liability when it believes that it is both probable that a liability will be incurred, and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, at least quarterly, developments in its legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that has been previously accrued and makes adjustments as appropriate. Significant judgment is required to determine both probability and the estimated amount of a loss or potential loss. The Company may be unable to reasonably estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for a particular legal contingency for various reasons, including, among others: (i) if the damages sought are indeterminate; (ii) if proceedings are in the early stages; (iii) if there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending proceedings (including motions and appeals); (iv) if there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of settlement and the outcome of any negotiations with respect thereto; (v) if there are significant factual issues to be determined or resolved; (vi) if the proceedings involve a large number of parties; (vii) if relevant law is unsettled or novel or untested legal theories are presented; or (viii) if the proceedings are taking place in jurisdictions where the laws are complex or unclear. In such instances, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss, if any.

Legal matters are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, some of which are beyond the Company’s control. As such, there can be no assurance that the final outcome of these matters will not materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Except as otherwise described below with respect to the Adrea LLC (Adrea) matter, the Company has determined that a loss is reasonably possible with respect to the matters described below. Based on its current knowledge the Company has determined that the amount of loss or range of loss, that is reasonably possible (or in the case of Adrea, probable), including any reasonably possible (or, in the case of Adrea, probable) losses in excess of amounts already accrued, is not estimable.

The following is a discussion of the material legal matters involving the Company.

PIN Pad Litigation

As previously disclosed, the Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals. Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012, the Company was served with four putative class action complaints (three in federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss. That motion is pending.

Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al.

On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California making the following allegations with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in California from August 5, 2007 to present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed meals and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to reimburse for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt from California’s wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class. The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011. On July 1, 2014 the court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The court ruled that plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden to demonstrate common issues predominated over individual issues, that plaintiff was a sufficient class representative, or that a class action was a superior method to adjudicate plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on August 29, 2014. On November 18, 2014, the trial court stayed all proceedings pending appeal. The parties have subsequently executed a settlement agreement memorializing a non-material resolution of the matter and will be filing a dismissal of the matter with the court.

Jones et al v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al.

On April 23, 2013, Kenneth Jones (Jones) filed a purported Private Attorney General Act action complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California making the following allegations with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in California: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that Jones and other “aggrieved employees” were improperly classified as exempt from California’s wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the plaintiff or the purported aggrieved employees. On May 7, 2013, Judge Michael Johnson (before whom the Lina action is pending) ordered the Jones action related to the Lina action and assigned the Jones action to himself. The Company was served with the complaint on May 16, 2013 and answered on June 10, 2013. On November 18, 2014, the court stayed all proceedings pending appeal in the related Lina action. The parties have subsequently executed a settlement agreement memorializing a non-material resolution of the matter and will be filing a dismissal of the matter with the court.

Cassandra Carag individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive

On November 27, 2013, former Associate Store Manager Cassandra Carag (Carag) brought suit in Sacramento County Superior Court, asserting claims on behalf of herself and all other hourly (non-exempt) Barnes & Noble employees in California in the preceding four years for unpaid regular and overtime wages based on alleged off-the-clock work, penalties and pay based on missed meal and rest breaks, and for improper wage statements, payroll records, and untimely pay at separation as a result of the alleged pay errors during employment. Via the complaint, Carag seeks to recover unpaid wages and statutory penalties for all hourly Barnes & Noble employees within California from November 27, 2009 to present. On February 13, 2014, the Company filed an Answer in the state court and concurrently requested removal of the action to federal court. On May 30, 2014, the federal court granted Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court and denied Plaintiff’s motion to strike portions of the Answer to the Complaint (referring the latter motion to the lower court for future consideration).

Adrea LLC v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., barnesandnoble.com llc and Nook Media LLC

With respect to the Adrea matter described herein, the Company has determined, based on its current knowledge, that a loss is probable.

On June 14, 2013, Adrea filed a complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc., NOOK Digital, LLC (formerly barnesandnoble.com llc) and B&N Education, LLC (formerly NOOK Media LLC) (B&N) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that various B&N NOOK products and related online services infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,298,851 (‘851 patent), 7,299,501 (‘501 patent) and 7,620,703 (‘703 patent). B&N filed its Answer on August 9, 2013, denying infringement and asserting several affirmative defenses. At the same time, B&N filed counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity with respect to each of the patents-in-suit. On July 1, 2014, the Court issued a decision granting partial summary judgment in B&N’s favor, and in particular granting B&N’s motion to dismiss one of Adrea’s infringement claims, and granting B&N’s motion to limit any damages award with respect to another of Adrea’s infringement claims.

Beginning October 7, 2014, through and including October 22, 2014, the case was tried to a jury in the Southern District of New York. The jury returned its verdict on October 27, 2014. The jury found no infringement with respect to the ‘851 patent, and infringement with respect to the ‘501 and ‘703 patents. It awarded damages in the amount of $1,330. The jury further found no willful infringement with respect to any patent.

On July 24, 2015, the Court granted B&N’s post trial application to invalidate one of the two patents (the ‘501 Patent) the jury found to have been infringed. On September 28, 2015, the Court heard post-trial motions on the jury’s infringement and validity determinations, and on February 24, 2016, it issued a decision upholding the jury’s determination of infringement and validity with respect to the ‘703 patent. Accordingly, the Court has now ordered a new trial on damages with respect to ‘703 patent, since the original damages award was a total award for both patents. The date of such trial, and the scope of any damage claims the Court may permit the jury to consider with respect to the ‘703 patent, are to be determined by the Court in due course.