Legal Matters	3 Months Ended
May 03, 2014
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
LEGAL MATTERS	LEGAL MATTERS On August 29, 2012, Patrick Edward Camasta, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, filed a putative class action complaint (the “Original Camasta Complaint”) against the Company in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois (Case No. 12CH4405). The Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Case No. 12 CV 7782). The Original Camasta Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's pattern and practice of advertising its normal retail prices as temporary price reductions violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Original Camasta Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as a class action, actual and punitive damages, attorney fees and costs and injunctive relief. On February 7, 2013, upon the motion of the Company, the said U.S. District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing the Original Camasta Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice. On March 1, 2013, Camasta filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the said United States District Court making substantially the same allegations as in the Original Camasta Complaint. On July 25, 2013, upon the motion of the Company, the said U.S. District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing the First Amended Class Action Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Camasta has appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. 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 (the “Original Johnson Complaint”) against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern District (Case No. 2:13-cv-756). The Original Johnson Complaint alleges, among other things, deceptive sales and marketing practices by the Company relating to its use of the words “free” and “regular price.” The Original Johnson Complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and costs and disbursements (including attorneys’ fees). On January 8, 2014, upon the motion of the Company, the U.S. District Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the Original Johnson Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice. On January 31, 2014, the Johnson Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court making substantially the same allegations as the Original Johnson Complaint. On February 21, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. (The law firm which filed the original Johnson Complaint and amended complaint on behalf of the plaintiffs is one of the law firms which filed the "Schneider Complaint," which is discussed in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2013. On July 24, 2013, the Schneider Complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Approximately one week later, the substantially similar Johnson Complaint was filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.) On January 29, 2014, State-Boston Retirement System (“Boston”), a purported Company stockholder, filed a purported class action complaint against the Company’s directors (the “Boston Defendants”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned State-Boston Retirement System v. Wildrick, et al., C.A. No. 9291. In its complaint, Boston asks the court to: (i) certify a purported class action lawsuit, designating Boston and Boston’s counsel as representatives of the purported class; (ii) declare that the Boston Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to the Company; (iii) enjoin the Boston Defendants from committing any further purported fiduciary duty breaches; (iv) enjoin the effectuation of the Company’s Rights Agreement, forcing the Board to redeem or invalidate the Rights Agreement; (v) enjoin the Boston Defendants from entering into any agreement on behalf of the Company to acquire another company or material assets; (vi) award Boston costs, expenses and disbursements of the Boston litigation, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees and, if applicable, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and (v) award Boston and the purported class such other relief as the court deems just, equitable, and proper. On March 4, 2014, Boston filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint that purports to raise direct claims against the Boston Defendants (the “Amended Boston Complaint”). In addition to the allegations described above, the Amended Boston Complaint, among other things, alleges that the Boston Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by moving forward with the Everest Transactions (hereinafter defined) while failing to give good-faith consideration of a revised offer from Java (hereinafter defined) to acquire all outstanding Shares (hereinafter defined) at a price of $63.50 per share. In addition to the requests mentioned above, the Amended Boston Complaint asks the court to (i) determine that the action is a proper derivative action and to excuse demand, and (ii) enjoin the Company from consummating the Everest Transactions. On March 11, 2014, the Company, Men's Wearhouse (hereinafter defined) and Java entered into the Merger Agreement and the Company terminated the Everest Purchase Agreement (hereinafter defined). The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. On May 8, 2014, Nicholas Derby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint (the “Derby Complaint”) against the Company in the Superior Court Department Business Litigation Session for Suffolk County, Massachusetts (C.A. No. 14-1512 BLS). The Derby Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company violated Massachusetts law through its practice of requiring, as a condition of using a credit card to make a purchase, plaintiff’s and class members’ personal identification information, specifically their ZIP codes. The Derby Complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, declaratory relief, statutory damages, double or treble damages, litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. In addition to the litigation discussed above, we are a party to routine litigation matters that are incidental to our business and are currently not expected to be material. From time to time, additional legal matters in which we may be named as a defendant are expected to arise in the normal course of our business activities. Except as otherwise set forth above, the resolution of our litigation matters cannot be accurately predicted and we have not estimated the costs or potential losses, if any, associated with these matters. Accordingly, we cannot determine whether our insurance coverage, if any, would be sufficient to cover such costs or potential losses, if any, and we have not recorded any provision for cost or loss associated with these actions. It is possible that our consolidated financial statements could be materially impacted in a particular fiscal quarter or year by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of any of these actions.

LEGAL MATTERS

On August 29, 2012, Patrick Edward Camasta, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, filed a putative class action complaint (the “Original Camasta Complaint”) against the Company in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois (Case No. 12CH4405). The Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Case No. 12 CV 7782). The Original Camasta Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's pattern and practice of advertising its normal retail prices as temporary price reductions violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Original Camasta Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as a class action, actual and punitive damages, attorney fees and costs and injunctive relief. On February 7, 2013, upon the motion of the Company, the said U.S. District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing the Original Camasta Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice. On March 1, 2013, Camasta filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the said United States District Court making substantially the same allegations as in the Original Camasta Complaint. On July 25, 2013, upon the motion of the Company, the said U.S. District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing the First Amended Class Action Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Camasta has appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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 (the “Original Johnson Complaint”) against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern District (Case No. 2:13-cv-756). The Original Johnson Complaint alleges, among other things, deceptive sales and marketing practices by the Company relating to its use of the words “free” and “regular price.” The Original Johnson Complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and costs and disbursements (including attorneys’ fees). On January 8, 2014, upon the motion of the Company, the U.S. District Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the Original Johnson Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice. On January 31, 2014, the Johnson Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court making substantially the same allegations as the Original Johnson Complaint. On February 21, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. (The law firm which filed the original Johnson Complaint and amended complaint on behalf of the plaintiffs is one of the law firms which filed the "Schneider Complaint," which is discussed in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2013. On July 24, 2013, the Schneider Complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Approximately one week later, the substantially similar Johnson Complaint was filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.)

On January 29, 2014, State-Boston Retirement System (“Boston”), a purported Company stockholder, filed a purported class action complaint against the Company’s directors (the “Boston Defendants”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned State-Boston Retirement System v. Wildrick, et al., C.A. No. 9291. In its complaint, Boston asks the court to: (i) certify a purported class action lawsuit, designating Boston and Boston’s counsel as representatives of the purported class; (ii) declare that the Boston Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to the Company; (iii) enjoin the Boston Defendants from committing any further purported fiduciary duty breaches; (iv) enjoin the effectuation of the Company’s Rights Agreement, forcing the Board to redeem or invalidate the Rights Agreement; (v) enjoin the Boston Defendants from entering into any agreement on behalf of the Company to acquire another company or material assets; (vi) award Boston costs, expenses and disbursements of the Boston litigation, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees and, if applicable, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and (v) award Boston and the purported class such other relief as the court deems just, equitable, and proper.

On March 4, 2014, Boston filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint that purports to raise direct claims against the Boston Defendants (the “Amended Boston Complaint”). In addition to the allegations described above, the Amended Boston Complaint, among other things, alleges that the Boston Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by moving forward with the Everest Transactions (hereinafter defined) while failing to give good-faith consideration of a revised offer from Java (hereinafter defined) to acquire all outstanding Shares (hereinafter defined) at a price of $63.50 per share. In addition to the requests mentioned above, the Amended Boston Complaint asks the court to (i) determine that the action is a proper derivative action and to excuse demand, and (ii) enjoin the Company from consummating the Everest Transactions. On March 11, 2014, the Company, Men's Wearhouse (hereinafter defined) and Java entered into the Merger Agreement and the Company terminated the Everest Purchase Agreement (hereinafter defined). The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.

On May 8, 2014, Nicholas Derby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint (the “Derby Complaint”) against the Company in the Superior Court Department Business Litigation Session for Suffolk County, Massachusetts (C.A. No. 14-1512 BLS). The Derby Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company violated Massachusetts law through its practice of requiring, as a condition of using a credit card to make a purchase, plaintiff’s and class members’ personal identification information, specifically their ZIP codes. The Derby Complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, declaratory relief, statutory damages, double or treble damages, litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.

In addition to the litigation discussed above, we are a party to routine litigation matters that are incidental to our business and are currently not expected to be material. From time to time, additional legal matters in which we may be named as a defendant are expected to arise in the normal course of our business activities.

Except as otherwise set forth above, the resolution of our litigation matters cannot be accurately predicted and we have not estimated the costs or potential losses, if any, associated with these matters. Accordingly, we cannot determine whether our insurance coverage, if any, would be sufficient to cover such costs or potential losses, if any, and we have not recorded any provision for cost or loss associated with these actions. It is possible that our consolidated financial statements could be materially impacted in a particular fiscal quarter or year by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of any of these actions.