Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Arbitration Award. On December 21, 2013, an award was issued (the "Arbitration Award") in favor of The Swatch Group Ltd. ("Swatch") and its wholly-owned subsidiary Tiffany Watch Co. ("Watch Company"; Swatch and Watch Company, together, the "Swatch Parties") in an arbitration proceeding (the "Arbitration") between the Registrant and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Tiffany and Company and Tiffany (NJ) Inc. (the Registrant and such subsidiaries, together, the "Tiffany Parties") and the Swatch Parties. The Arbitration was initiated in June 2011 by the Swatch Parties, who sought damages for alleged breach of agreements entered into by and among the Swatch Parties and the Tiffany Parties in December 2007 (the "Agreements"). The Agreements pertained to the development and commercialization of a watch business and, among other things, contained various licensing and governance provisions and approval requirements relating to business, marketing and branding plans and provisions allocating profits relating to sales of the watch business between the Swatch Parties and the Tiffany Parties. In general terms, the Swatch Parties alleged that the Tiffany Parties breached the Agreements by obstructing and delaying development of Watch Company’s business and otherwise failing to proceed in good faith. The Swatch Parties sought damages based on alternate theories ranging from CHF 73.0 million (or approximately $74.0 million at July 31, 2018) (based on its alleged wasted investment) to CHF 3.8 billion (or approximately $3.8 billion at July 31, 2018) (calculated based on alleged future lost profits of the Swatch Parties and their affiliates over the entire term of the Agreements). The Registrant believes that the claims of the Swatch Parties are without merit. In the Arbitration, the Tiffany Parties defended against the Swatch Parties’ claims vigorously, disputing both the merits of the claims and the calculation of the alleged damages. The Tiffany Parties also asserted counterclaims for damages attributable to breach by the Swatch Parties, stemming from the Swatch Parties’ September 12, 2011 public issuance of a Notice of Termination purporting to terminate the Agreements due to alleged material breach by the Tiffany Parties, and for termination due to such breach. In general terms, the Tiffany Parties alleged that the Swatch Parties did not have grounds for termination, failed to meet the high standard for proving material breach set forth in the Agreements and failed to provide appropriate management, distribution, marketing and other resources for TIFFANY & CO. brand watches and to honor their contractual obligations to the Tiffany Parties regarding brand management. The Tiffany Parties’ counterclaims sought damages based on alternate theories ranging from CHF 120.0 million (or approximately $121.0 million at July 31, 2018) (based on its wasted investment) to approximately CHF 540.0 million (or approximately $547.0 million at July 31, 2018) (calculated based on alleged future lost profits of the Tiffany Parties). The Arbitration hearing was held in October 2012 before a three-member arbitral panel convened in the Netherlands pursuant to the Arbitration Rules of the Netherlands Arbitration Institute (the "Rules"), and the Arbitration record was completed in February 2013. Under the terms of the Arbitration Award, and at the request of the Swatch Parties and the Tiffany Parties, the Agreements were deemed terminated. The Arbitration Award stated that the effective date of termination was March 1, 2013. Pursuant to the Arbitration Award, the Tiffany Parties were ordered to pay the Swatch Parties damages of CHF 402.7 million (the "Arbitration Damages"), as well as interest from June 30, 2012 to the date of payment, two-thirds of the cost of the Arbitration and two-thirds of the Swatch Parties' legal fees, expenses and costs. These amounts were paid in full in January 2014. Prior to the ruling of the arbitral panel, no accrual was established in the Company's consolidated financial statements because management did not believe the likelihood of an award of damages to the Swatch Parties was probable. As a result of the ruling, in the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company recorded a charge of $480.2 million, which included the damages, interest, and other costs associated with the ruling and which was classified as Arbitration award expense in the consolidated statement of earnings. On March 31, 2014, the Tiffany Parties took action in the District Court of Amsterdam to annul the Arbitration Award. Generally, arbitration awards are final; however, Dutch law does provide for limited grounds on which arbitral awards may be set aside. The Tiffany Parties petitioned to annul the Arbitration Award on these statutory grounds. These grounds include, for example, that the arbitral tribunal violated its mandate by changing the express terms of the Agreements. A three-judge panel presided over the annulment hearing on January 19, 2015, and, on March 4, 2015, issued a decision in favor of the Tiffany Parties. Under this decision, the Arbitration Award was set aside. However, the Swatch Parties took action in the Dutch courts to appeal the District Court's decision, and a three-judge panel of the Appellate Court of Amsterdam presided over an appellate hearing in respect of the annulment, and the related claim by the Tiffany Parties for the return of the Arbitration Damages and related costs, on June 29, 2016. The Appellate Court issued its decision on April 25, 2017, finding in favor of the Swatch Parties and ordering the Tiffany Parties to reimburse the Swatch Parties EUR 6,340 in legal costs. The Tiffany Parties have taken action to appeal the decision of the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. As such, the Arbitration Award may ultimately be set aside by the Supreme Court. Registrant's management believes it is likely that the Supreme Court will issue its decision at a future date during Registrant's fiscal year ending January 31, 2019. However, it is possible that such decision could be later issued or that such decision could require the Appellate Court to reconsider certain elements of the dispute and, as such, the annulment action may not be ultimately resolved until, at the earliest, Registrant's fiscal year ending January 31, 2020. If the Arbitration Award is finally annulled, management anticipates that the claims and counterclaims that formed the basis of the Arbitration, and potentially additional claims and counterclaims, will be litigated in court proceedings between and among the Swatch Parties and the Tiffany Parties. The identity and location of the courts that would hear such actions have not been determined at this time. In any litigation regarding the claims and counterclaims that formed the basis of the arbitration, issues of liability and damages will be pled and determined without regard to the findings of the arbitral panel. As such, it is possible that a court could find that the Swatch Parties were in material breach of their obligations under the Agreements, that the Tiffany Parties were in material breach of their obligations under the Agreements or that neither the Swatch Parties nor the Tiffany Parties were in material breach. If the Swatch Parties’ claims of liability were accepted by the court, the damages award cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, but could exceed the Arbitration Damages and could have a material adverse effect on the Registrant’s consolidated financial statements or liquidity. Management has not established any accrual in the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements for the six months ended July 31, 2018 related to the annulment process or any potential subsequent litigation because it does not believe that the final annulment of the Arbitration Award and a subsequent award of damages exceeding the Arbitration Damages is probable. Other Litigation Matters. The Company is from time to time involved in routine litigation incidental to the conduct of its business, including proceedings to protect its trademark rights, litigation with parties claiming infringement of patents and other intellectual property rights by the Company, litigation instituted by persons alleged to have been injured upon premises under the Company's control and litigation with present and former employees and customers. Although litigation with present and former employees is routine and incidental to the conduct of the Company's business, as well as for any business employing significant numbers of employees, such litigation can result in large monetary awards when a civil jury is allowed to determine compensatory and/or punitive damages for actions such as those claiming discrimination on the basis of age, gender, race, religion, disability or other legally-protected characteristic or for termination of employment that is wrongful or in violation of implied contracts. However, the Company believes that all such litigation currently pending to which it is a party or to which its properties are subject will be resolved without any material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, earnings or cash flows. Gain Contingency. On February 14, 2013, Tiffany and Company and Tiffany (NJ) LLC (collectively, the "Tiffany plaintiffs") initiated a lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corp. ("Costco") for trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, trademark dilution and trademark counterfeiting (the "Costco Litigation"). The Tiffany plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, monetary recovery and statutory damages on account of Costco's use of "Tiffany" on signs in the jewelry cases at Costco stores used to describe certain diamond engagement rings that were not manufactured by Tiffany. Costco filed a counterclaim arguing that the TIFFANY trademark was a generic term for multi-pronged ring settings and seeking to have the trademark invalidated, modified or partially canceled in that respect. On September 8, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") granted the Tiffany plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment of liability in its entirety, dismissing Costco's genericism counterclaim and finding that Costco was liable for trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting and unfair competition under New York law in its use of "Tiffany" on the above-referenced signs. On September 29, 2016, a civil jury rendered its verdict, finding that Costco's profits on the sale of the infringing rings should be awarded at $5.5 million, and further finding that an award of punitive damages was warranted. On October 5, 2016, the jury awarded $8.25 million in punitive damages. The aggregate award of $13.75 million was not final, as it was subject to post-verdict motion practice and ultimately to adjustment by the Court. On August 14, 2017, the Court issued its ruling, finding that the Tiffany plaintiffs are entitled to recover (i) $11.1 million in respect of Costco's profits on the sale of the infringing rings (which amount is three times the amount of such profits, as determined by the Court), (ii) prejudgment interest on such amount (calculated at the applicable statutory rate) from February 15, 2013 through August 14, 2017, (iii) an additional $8.25 million in punitive damages, and (iv) Tiffany's reasonable attorneys' fees (which will be determined at a later date), and, on August 24, 2017, the Court entered judgment in the amount of $21.0 million in favor of the Tiffany plaintiffs (reflecting items (i) through (iii) above). Costco has filed an appeal from the judgment, as well as a motion in the Court for a new trial. The appeal has been automatically stayed pending determination of the Court motion. Costco has also filed an appeal bond to secure the amount of the judgment entered by the Court pending appeal, so the Tiffany plaintiffs will be unable to enforce the judgment while the motion for a new trial and the appeal are pending. As such, the Company has not recorded any amount in its condensed consolidated financial statements related to this gain contingency as of July 31, 2018, and expects that this matter will not ultimately be resolved until, at the earliest, a future date during the Company's fiscal year ending January 31, 2019. Environmental Matter. In 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") designated a 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River (the "River") part of the Diamond Alkali "Superfund" site. This designation resulted from the detection of hazardous substances emanating from the site, which was previously home to the Diamond Shamrock Corporation, a manufacturer of pesticides and herbicides. Under the Superfund law, the EPA will negotiate with potentially responsible parties to agree on remediation approaches and may also enter into settlement agreements pursuant to an allocation process. The Company, which operated a silverware manufacturing facility near a tributary of the River from approximately 1897 to 1985, is one of more than 300 parties (the "Potentially Responsible Parties") designated in litigation as potentially responsible parties with respect to the River. The EPA issued general notice letters to 125 of these parties. The Company, along with approximately 70 other Potentially Responsible Parties (collectively, the "Cooperating Parties Group" or "CPG") voluntarily entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent ("AOC") with the EPA in May 2007 to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (the "RI/FS") of the lower 17 miles of the River. In June 2012, most of the CPG voluntarily entered into a second AOC related to focused remediation actions at Mile 10.9 of the River. The actions under the Mile 10.9 AOC are complete (except for continued monitoring), the Remedial Investigation ("RI") portion of the RI/FS was submitted to the EPA on February 19, 2015, and the Feasibility Study ("FS") portion of the RI/FS was submitted to the EPA on April 30, 2015. The Company nonetheless remained in the CPG until October 24, 2017. The Company has accrued for its financial obligations under both AOCs, which have not been material to its financial position or results of operations in previous financial periods or on a cumulative basis. The FS presented and evaluated three options for remediating the lower 17 miles of the River, including the approach recommended by the EPA in its Focused Feasibility Study discussed below, as well as a fourth option of taking no action, and recommended an approach for a targeted remediation of the entire 17-mile stretch of the River. The estimated cost of the approach recommended by the CPG in the FS is approximately $483.0 million. The RI and FS are being reviewed by the EPA and other governmental agencies and stakeholders. Ultimately, the Company expects that the EPA will identify and negotiate with any or all of the potentially responsible parties regarding any remediation action that may be necessary, and issue a Record of Decision with a proposed approach to remediating the entire lower 17-mile stretch of the River. Separately, on April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a proposed plan for remediating the lower eight miles of the River, which is supported by a Focused Feasibility Study (the "FFS"). The FFS evaluated three remediation options, as well as a fourth option of taking no action. Following a public review and comment period and the EPA's review of comments received, the EPA issued a Record of Decision on March 4, 2016 that set forth a remediation plan for the lower eight miles of the River (the "RoD Remediation"). The RoD Remediation is estimated by the EPA to cost $1.38 billion. The Record of Decision did not identify any party or parties as being responsible for the design of the remediation or for the remediation itself. The EPA did note that it estimates the design of the necessary remediation activities will take three to four years, with the remediation to follow, which is estimated to take an additional six years to complete. On March 31, 2016, the EPA issued a letter to approximately 100 companies (including the Company) (collectively, the "notified companies") notifying them of potential liability for the RoD Remediation and of the EPA’s planned approach to addressing the cost of the RoD Remediation, which included the possibility of a de-minimis cash-out settlement (the "settlement option") for certain parties. In April of 2016, the Company notified the EPA of its interest in pursuing the settlement option, and accordingly recorded an immaterial liability representing its best estimate of its minimum liability for the RoD Remediation, which reflects the possibility of a de-minimis settlement. On March 30, 2017, the EPA issued offers related to the settlement option to 20 parties; while the Company was not one of the parties receiving such an offer, the EPA has indicated that the settlement option may be made available to additional parties beyond those notified on March 30, 2017. Although the EPA must determine which additional parties are eligible for the settlement option, the Company does not expect any settlement amount that it might agree with the EPA to be material to its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In the absence of a viable settlement option with the EPA, the Company is unable to determine its participation in the overall RoD Remediation, if any, relative to the other potentially responsible parties, or the allocation of the estimated cost thereof among the potentially responsible parties, until such time as the EPA reaches an agreement with any potentially responsible party or parties to fund the RoD Remediation (or pursues legal or administrative action to require any potentially responsible party or parties to perform, or pay for, the RoD Remediation). With respect to the RI/FS (which is distinct from the RoD Remediation), until a Record of Decision is issued with respect to the RI/FS, neither the ultimate remedial approach for the remaining upper nine miles of the relevant 17-mile stretch of the River and its cost, nor the Company's participation, if any, relative to the other potentially responsible parties in this approach and cost, can be determined. In October 2016, the EPA announced that it entered into a legal agreement with Occidental Chemical Corporation ("OCC"), pursuant to which OCC agreed to spend $165.0 million to perform the engineering and design work required in advance of the clean-up contemplated by the RoD Remediation (the "RoD Design Phase"). OCC has waived any rights to collect contribution from the Company (the "Waiver") for certain costs, including those associated with such engineering and design work, incurred by OCC through July 14, 2016. However, on June 29, 2018, OCC filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Tiffany and Company and 119 other companies (the "defendant companies") seeking to have the defendant companies reimburse OCC for certain response costs incurred by OCC in connection with its and its predecessors' remediation work relating to the River, other than those costs subject to the Waiver. OCC is also seeking a declaratory judgment to hold the defendant companies liable for their alleged shares of future response costs, including costs related to the RoD Remediation. The suit does not quantify damages sought, and the Company is unable to determine at this time whether, or to what extent, the OCC lawsuit will impact the cost allocation described in the immediately preceding paragraph or will otherwise result in any liabilities for the Company. Given the uncertainties described above, the Company's liability, if any, beyond that already recorded for (1) its obligations under the 2007 AOC and the Mile 10.9 AOC, and (2) its estimate related to a de-minimis cash-out settlement for the RoD Remediation, cannot be determined at this time. However, the Company does not expect that its ultimate liability related to the relevant 17-mile stretch of the River will be material to its financial position, in light of the number of companies that have previously been identified as Potentially Responsible Parties (i.e., the more than 300 parties that were initially designated in litigation as potentially responsible parties), which includes, but goes well beyond those approximately 70 CPG member companies that participated in the 2007 AOC and the Mile 10.9 AOC, and the Company's relative participation in the costs related to the 2007 AOC and Mile 10.9 AOC. It is nonetheless possible that any resulting liability when the uncertainties discussed above are resolved could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows in the period in which such uncertainties are resolved.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Arbitration Award. On December 21, 2013, an award was issued (the "Arbitration Award") in favor of The Swatch Group Ltd. ("Swatch") and its wholly-owned subsidiary Tiffany Watch Co. ("Watch Company"; Swatch and Watch Company, together, the "Swatch Parties") in an arbitration proceeding (the "Arbitration") between the Registrant and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Tiffany and Company and Tiffany (NJ) Inc. (the Registrant and such subsidiaries, together, the "Tiffany Parties") and the Swatch Parties.

The Arbitration was initiated in June 2011 by the Swatch Parties, who sought damages for alleged breach of agreements entered into by and among the Swatch Parties and the Tiffany Parties in December 2007 (the "Agreements"). The Agreements pertained to the development and commercialization of a watch business and, among other things, contained various licensing and governance provisions and approval requirements relating to business, marketing and branding plans and provisions allocating profits relating to sales of the watch business between the Swatch Parties and the Tiffany Parties.

In general terms, the Swatch Parties alleged that the Tiffany Parties breached the Agreements by obstructing and delaying development of Watch Company’s business and otherwise failing to proceed in good faith. The Swatch Parties sought damages based on alternate theories ranging from CHF 73.0 million (or approximately $74.0 million at July 31, 2018) (based on its alleged wasted investment) to CHF 3.8 billion (or approximately $3.8 billion at July 31, 2018) (calculated based on alleged future lost profits of the Swatch Parties and their affiliates over the entire term of the Agreements).

The Registrant believes that the claims of the Swatch Parties are without merit. In the Arbitration, the Tiffany Parties defended against the Swatch Parties’ claims vigorously, disputing both the merits of the claims and the calculation of the alleged damages. The Tiffany Parties also asserted counterclaims for damages attributable to breach by the Swatch Parties, stemming from the Swatch Parties’ September 12, 2011 public issuance of a Notice of Termination purporting to terminate the Agreements due to alleged material breach by the Tiffany Parties, and for termination due to such breach. In general terms, the Tiffany Parties alleged that the Swatch Parties did not have grounds for termination, failed to meet the high standard for proving material breach set forth in the Agreements and failed to provide appropriate management, distribution, marketing and other resources for TIFFANY & CO. brand watches and to honor their contractual obligations to the Tiffany Parties regarding brand management. The Tiffany Parties’ counterclaims sought damages based on alternate theories ranging from CHF 120.0 million (or approximately $121.0 million at July 31, 2018) (based on its wasted investment) to approximately CHF 540.0 million (or approximately $547.0 million at July 31, 2018) (calculated based on alleged future lost profits of the Tiffany Parties).

The Arbitration hearing was held in October 2012 before a three-member arbitral panel convened in the Netherlands pursuant to the Arbitration Rules of the Netherlands Arbitration Institute (the "Rules"), and the Arbitration record was completed in February 2013.

Under the terms of the Arbitration Award, and at the request of the Swatch Parties and the Tiffany Parties, the Agreements were deemed terminated. The Arbitration Award stated that the effective date of termination was March 1, 2013. Pursuant to the Arbitration Award, the Tiffany Parties were ordered to pay the Swatch Parties damages of CHF 402.7 million (the "Arbitration Damages"), as well as interest from June 30, 2012 to the date of payment, two-thirds of the cost of the Arbitration and two-thirds of the Swatch Parties' legal fees, expenses and costs. These amounts were paid in full in January 2014.

Prior to the ruling of the arbitral panel, no accrual was established in the Company's consolidated financial statements because management did not believe the likelihood of an award of damages to the Swatch Parties was probable. As a result of the ruling, in the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company recorded a charge of $480.2 million, which included the damages, interest, and other costs associated with the ruling and which was classified as Arbitration award expense in the consolidated statement of earnings.

On March 31, 2014, the Tiffany Parties took action in the District Court of Amsterdam to annul the Arbitration Award. Generally, arbitration awards are final; however, Dutch law does provide for limited grounds on which arbitral awards may be set aside. The Tiffany Parties petitioned to annul the Arbitration Award on these statutory grounds. These grounds include, for example, that the arbitral tribunal violated its mandate by changing the express terms of the Agreements.

A three-judge panel presided over the annulment hearing on January 19, 2015, and, on March 4, 2015, issued a decision in favor of the Tiffany Parties. Under this decision, the Arbitration Award was set aside. However, the Swatch Parties took action in the Dutch courts to appeal the District Court's decision, and a three-judge panel of the Appellate Court of Amsterdam presided over an appellate hearing in respect of the annulment, and the related claim by the Tiffany Parties for the return of the Arbitration Damages and related costs, on June 29, 2016. The Appellate Court issued its decision on April 25, 2017, finding in favor of the Swatch Parties and ordering the Tiffany Parties to reimburse the Swatch Parties EUR 6,340 in legal costs. The Tiffany Parties have taken action to appeal the decision of the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. As such, the Arbitration Award may ultimately be set aside by the Supreme Court. Registrant's management believes it is likely that the Supreme Court will issue its decision at a future date during Registrant's fiscal year ending January 31, 2019. However, it is possible that such decision could be later issued or that such decision could require the Appellate Court to reconsider certain elements of the dispute and, as such, the annulment action may not be ultimately resolved until, at the earliest, Registrant's fiscal year ending January 31, 2020.

If the Arbitration Award is finally annulled, management anticipates that the claims and counterclaims that formed the basis of the Arbitration, and potentially additional claims and counterclaims, will be litigated in court proceedings between and among the Swatch Parties and the Tiffany Parties. The identity and location of the courts that would hear such actions have not been determined at this time.

In any litigation regarding the claims and counterclaims that formed the basis of the arbitration, issues of liability and damages will be pled and determined without regard to the findings of the arbitral panel. As such, it is possible that a court could find that the Swatch Parties were in material breach of their obligations under the Agreements, that the Tiffany Parties were in material breach of their obligations under the Agreements or that neither the Swatch Parties nor the Tiffany Parties were in material breach. If the Swatch Parties’ claims of liability were accepted by the court, the damages award cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, but could exceed the Arbitration Damages and could have a material adverse effect on the Registrant’s consolidated financial statements or liquidity.

Management has not established any accrual in the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements for the six months ended July 31, 2018 related to the annulment process or any potential subsequent litigation because it does not believe that the final annulment of the Arbitration Award and a subsequent award of damages exceeding the Arbitration Damages is probable.

Other Litigation Matters. The Company is from time to time involved in routine litigation incidental to the conduct of its business, including proceedings to protect its trademark rights, litigation with parties claiming infringement of patents and other intellectual property rights by the Company, litigation instituted by persons alleged to have been injured upon premises under the Company's control and litigation with present and former employees and customers. Although litigation with present and former employees is routine and incidental to the conduct of the Company's business, as well as for any business employing significant numbers of employees, such litigation can result in large monetary awards when a civil jury is allowed to determine compensatory and/or punitive damages for actions such as those claiming discrimination on the basis of age, gender, race, religion, disability or other legally-protected characteristic or for termination of employment that is wrongful or in violation of implied contracts. However, the Company believes that all such litigation currently pending to which it is a party or to which its properties are subject will be resolved without any material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, earnings or cash flows.

Gain Contingency. On February 14, 2013, Tiffany and Company and Tiffany (NJ) LLC (collectively, the "Tiffany plaintiffs") initiated a lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corp. ("Costco") for trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, trademark dilution and trademark counterfeiting (the "Costco Litigation"). The Tiffany plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, monetary recovery and statutory damages on account of Costco's use of "Tiffany" on signs in the jewelry cases at Costco stores used to describe certain diamond engagement rings that were not manufactured by Tiffany. Costco filed a counterclaim arguing that the TIFFANY trademark was a generic term for multi-pronged ring settings and seeking to have the trademark invalidated, modified or partially canceled in that respect. On September 8, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") granted the Tiffany plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment of liability in its entirety, dismissing Costco's genericism counterclaim and finding that Costco was liable for trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting and unfair competition under New York law in its use of "Tiffany" on the above-referenced signs. On September 29, 2016, a civil jury rendered its verdict, finding that Costco's profits on the sale of the infringing rings should be awarded at $5.5 million, and further finding that an award of punitive damages was warranted. On October 5, 2016, the jury awarded $8.25 million in punitive damages. The aggregate award of $13.75 million was not final, as it was subject to post-verdict motion practice and ultimately to adjustment by the Court. On August 14, 2017, the Court issued its ruling, finding that the Tiffany plaintiffs are entitled to recover (i) $11.1 million in respect of Costco's profits on the sale of the infringing rings (which amount is three times the amount of such profits, as determined by the Court), (ii) prejudgment interest on such amount (calculated at the applicable statutory rate) from February 15, 2013 through August 14, 2017, (iii) an additional $8.25 million in punitive damages, and (iv) Tiffany's reasonable attorneys' fees (which will be determined at a later date), and, on August 24, 2017, the Court entered judgment in the amount of $21.0 million in favor of the Tiffany plaintiffs (reflecting items (i) through (iii) above). Costco has filed an appeal from the judgment, as well as a motion in the Court for a new trial. The appeal has been automatically stayed pending determination of the Court motion. Costco has also filed an appeal bond to secure the amount of the judgment entered by the Court pending appeal, so the Tiffany plaintiffs will be unable to enforce the judgment while the motion for a new trial and the appeal are pending. As such, the Company has not recorded any amount in its condensed consolidated financial statements related to this gain contingency as of July 31, 2018, and expects that this matter will not ultimately be resolved until, at the earliest, a future date during the Company's fiscal year ending January 31, 2019.

Environmental Matter. In 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") designated a 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River (the "River") part of the Diamond Alkali "Superfund" site. This designation resulted from the detection of hazardous substances emanating from the site, which was previously home to the Diamond Shamrock Corporation, a manufacturer of pesticides and herbicides. Under the Superfund law, the EPA will negotiate with potentially responsible parties to agree on remediation approaches and may also enter into settlement agreements pursuant to an allocation process.

The Company, which operated a silverware manufacturing facility near a tributary of the River from approximately 1897 to 1985, is one of more than 300 parties (the "Potentially Responsible Parties") designated in litigation as potentially responsible parties with respect to the River. The EPA issued general notice letters to 125 of these parties. The Company, along with approximately 70 other Potentially Responsible Parties (collectively, the "Cooperating Parties Group" or "CPG") voluntarily entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent ("AOC") with the EPA in May 2007 to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (the "RI/FS") of the lower 17 miles of the River. In June 2012, most of the CPG voluntarily entered into a second AOC related to focused remediation actions at Mile 10.9 of the River. The actions under the Mile 10.9 AOC are complete (except for continued monitoring), the Remedial Investigation ("RI") portion of the RI/FS was submitted to the EPA on February 19, 2015, and the Feasibility Study ("FS") portion of the RI/FS was submitted to the EPA on April 30, 2015. The Company nonetheless remained in the CPG until October 24, 2017. The Company has accrued for its financial obligations under both AOCs, which have not been material to its financial position or results of operations in previous financial periods or on a cumulative basis.

The FS presented and evaluated three options for remediating the lower 17 miles of the River, including the approach recommended by the EPA in its Focused Feasibility Study discussed below, as well as a fourth option of taking no action, and recommended an approach for a targeted remediation of the entire 17-mile stretch of the River. The estimated cost of the approach recommended by the CPG in the FS is approximately $483.0 million. The RI and FS are being reviewed by the EPA and other governmental agencies and stakeholders. Ultimately, the Company expects that the EPA will identify and negotiate with any or all of the potentially responsible parties regarding any remediation action that may be necessary, and issue a Record of Decision with a proposed approach to remediating the entire lower 17-mile stretch of the River.

Separately, on April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a proposed plan for remediating the lower eight miles of the River, which is supported by a Focused Feasibility Study (the "FFS"). The FFS evaluated three remediation options, as well as a fourth option of taking no action. Following a public review and comment period and the EPA's review of comments received, the EPA issued a Record of Decision on March 4, 2016 that set forth a remediation plan for the lower eight miles of the River (the "RoD Remediation"). The RoD Remediation is estimated by the EPA to cost $1.38 billion. The Record of Decision did not identify any party or parties as being responsible for the design of the remediation or for the remediation itself. The EPA did note that it estimates the design of the necessary remediation activities will take three to four years, with the remediation to follow, which is estimated to take an additional six years to complete.

On March 31, 2016, the EPA issued a letter to approximately 100 companies (including the Company) (collectively, the "notified companies") notifying them of potential liability for the RoD Remediation and of the EPA’s planned approach to addressing the cost of the RoD Remediation, which included the possibility of a de-minimis cash-out settlement (the "settlement option") for certain parties. In April of 2016, the Company notified the EPA of its interest in pursuing the settlement option, and accordingly recorded an immaterial liability representing its best estimate of its minimum liability for the RoD Remediation, which reflects the possibility of a de-minimis settlement. On March 30, 2017, the EPA issued offers related to the settlement option to 20 parties; while the Company was not one of the parties receiving such an offer, the EPA has indicated that the settlement option may be made available to additional parties beyond those notified on March 30, 2017. Although the EPA must determine which additional parties are eligible for the settlement option, the Company does not expect any settlement amount that it might agree with the EPA to be material to its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In the absence of a viable settlement option with the EPA, the Company is unable to determine its participation in the overall RoD Remediation, if any, relative to the other potentially responsible parties, or the allocation of the estimated cost thereof among the potentially responsible parties, until such time as the EPA reaches an agreement with any potentially responsible party or parties to fund the RoD Remediation (or pursues legal or administrative action to require any potentially responsible party or parties to perform, or pay for, the RoD Remediation). With respect to the RI/FS (which is distinct from the RoD Remediation), until a Record of Decision is issued with respect to the RI/FS, neither the ultimate remedial approach for the remaining upper nine miles of the relevant 17-mile stretch of the River and its cost, nor the Company's participation, if any, relative to the other potentially responsible parties in this approach and cost, can be determined.

In October 2016, the EPA announced that it entered into a legal agreement with Occidental Chemical Corporation ("OCC"), pursuant to which OCC agreed to spend $165.0 million to perform the engineering and design work required in advance of the clean-up contemplated by the RoD Remediation (the "RoD Design Phase"). OCC has waived any rights to collect contribution from the Company (the "Waiver") for certain costs, including those associated with such engineering and design work, incurred by OCC through July 14, 2016. However, on June 29, 2018, OCC filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Tiffany and Company and 119 other companies (the "defendant companies") seeking to have the defendant companies reimburse OCC for certain response costs incurred by OCC in connection with its and its predecessors' remediation work relating to the River, other than those costs subject to the Waiver. OCC is also seeking a declaratory judgment to hold the defendant companies liable for their alleged shares of future response costs, including costs related to the RoD Remediation. The suit does not quantify damages sought, and the Company is unable to determine at this time whether, or to what extent, the OCC lawsuit will impact the cost allocation described in the immediately preceding paragraph or will otherwise result in any liabilities for the Company.

Given the uncertainties described above, the Company's liability, if any, beyond that already recorded for (1) its obligations under the 2007 AOC and the Mile 10.9 AOC, and (2) its estimate related to a de-minimis cash-out settlement for the RoD Remediation, cannot be determined at this time. However, the Company does not expect that its ultimate liability related to the relevant 17-mile stretch of the River will be material to its financial position, in light of the number of companies that have previously been identified as Potentially Responsible Parties (i.e., the more than 300 parties that were initially designated in litigation as potentially responsible parties), which includes, but goes well beyond those approximately 70 CPG member companies that participated in the 2007 AOC and the Mile 10.9 AOC, and the Company's relative participation in the costs related to the 2007 AOC and Mile 10.9 AOC. It is nonetheless possible that any resulting liability when the uncertainties discussed above are resolved could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows in the period in which such uncertainties are resolved.