XML 30 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Oct. 29, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies In accordance with accounting standards regarding loss contingencies, the Company accrues an undiscounted liability for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company also discloses the amount accrued and the amount of a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, if such disclosure is necessary for its consolidated financial statements not to be misleading. The Company does not record liabilities when the likelihood that the liability has been incurred is probable but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated, or when the liability is believed to be only reasonably possible or remote. 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. The Company may be unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss due to various reasons, including, among others: (i) if the damages sought are indeterminate; (ii) if the proceedings are in early stages, (iii) if there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals, motions or settlements, (iv) if there are significant factual issues to be determined or resolved, and (v) if there are novel or unsettled legal theories presented. In such instances, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss, if any. Because the outcomes of litigation and other legal matters are inherently unpredictable, the Company’s evaluation of legal matters or proceedings often involves a series of complex assessments by management about future events and can rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. While the consequences of certain unresolved matters and proceedings are not presently determinable, and an estimate of the probable and reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued for such proceedings cannot be reasonably made, an adverse outcome from such proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s earnings in any given reporting period. However, in the opinion of management, after consulting with legal counsel, any ultimate liability related to current outstanding claims and lawsuits, individually or in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements, as a whole. However, legal matters are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, some of which are beyond the Company’s control. As such, even though the Company intends to vigorously defend itself with respect to its legal matters, there can be no assurance that the final outcome of these matters will not materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, operating results, or cash flows. From time to time, the Company is involved in various claims, litigation, and other legal actions that are normal to the nature of its business, including with respect to IP, contract, product liability, employment, and environmental matters. In the opinion of management, after consulting with legal counsel, any ultimate liability related to current outstanding claims and lawsuits, individually or in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements, as a whole. The Company’s currently pending legal matters of note are discussed below: Environmental Matters In 2001, the Company was notified by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control ("State") that it may have liability associated with the clean-up of the one-third acre Davis Chemical Company site in Los Angeles, California. The Company has been included in the clean-up program because it was one of the companies that used the Davis Chemical Company site for waste recycling and/or disposal between 1949 and 1990. The Company joined with other potentially responsible parties that sent acetone to the site and entered into a Consent Order with the State that required the group to perform a soil investigation at the site and submit a remediation plan. The State has approved the remediation plan, which addressed the group’s initial obligations under the Consent Order. The Consent Order does not require the group to remediate the site and the State has indicated it intends to look to other parties for remediation. To date, the Company’s share of the group’s expenses has not been material and has been expensed as incurred. More recently, the State has decided to pursue a smaller group of parties for additional remediation and/or costs, in particular, parties the State alleges provided chlorinated solvents for recycling, including the Company. Due to the fact that there are fewer parties that are alleged to have provided chlorinated solvent wastes, the potential share of this alleged liability is much larger than the Company’s share of acetone group potential liability. On January 30, 2017, the Company entered into a Consent Decree to settle and resolve all of the State’s claims against the Company, including any liability the Company may have relating to acetone and chlorinated solvents. The Company’s share of the settlement amount to be paid to the State is not material. On January 31, 2017, the State filed its Complaint and lodged the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree was subject to a public comment period of not less than 30 days. The State filed a motion for entry of the Consent Decree on April 25, 2017 and the current owner of the property, Westside Delivery LLC, filed an Objection to the Proposed Consent Decree and Opposition to the Motion for Entry as well as a Motion to Intervene on May 15, 2017. On July 21, 2017, the Court granted the Motion to Intervene and Westside Delivery filed an intervenor complaint on July 26, 2017. On July 31, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation requesting a stay of the proceedings pending a ruling on an appeal in the case between the State and Westside Delivery. On August 2, 2017, the Court entered an order granting the State’s motion for entry of the Consent Decree, but did not actually sign the Consent Decree. On August 4, 2017, the Court entered an order staying the proceedings pending appeal, but then on August 10, 2017, the Court signed the Consent Decree. The Company has been informed by the State that Westside Delivery has asserted an ability to appeal the entry of the Consent Decree, despite the fact that the 30 days provided in the rules for filing a notice of appeal has lapsed and the parties to the Consent Decree have complied with its terms, including having made the appropriate payments. The Company has used an environmental firm, specializing in hydrogeology, to perform monitoring of the groundwater at the Company’s former facility in Newbury Park, California that was leased for approximately forty years. The Company vacated the building in May 2002. Certain contaminants have been found in the local groundwater and site soils. The location of key soil contamination (and some related site groundwater impact associated with the soil contamination) is concentrated in and found to emanate from an area of an underground storage tank that the Company believes to have been installed and primarily used in the early 1960s by a former tenant at the site who preceded the Company’s tenancy. There are no litigation claims pending with respect to environmental matters at the Newbury Park site. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board ("RWQCB") having authority over the site issued joint instructions in November 2008, ordering the Company and the current owner of the site to perform additional assessments and surveys, and to create ongoing groundwater monitoring plans before any final regulatory action for "no further action" may be approved. In September 2009, the regulatory agency issued supplemental instructions to the Company and the current site owner regarding previously ordered site assessments, surveys and groundwater monitoring. In October 2013, an order was issued including a scope of proposed additional site work, monitoring, and proposed remediation activities. The Company filed appeals of the October 2013 order seeking reconsideration by the RWQCB and review by the State Water Resources Control Board ("SWRCB") of the removal of two other potentially responsible parties, and seeking clarification of certain other factual findings. In April 2015, the RWQCB denied the Company’s request to name the two other potentially responsible parties to the order, but did correct certain findings of fact identified by the Company in its petition for reconsideration. The SWRCB has not yet ruled on the Company’s petition for review of the RWQCB’s action as the petition was filed with a request it be held in abeyance. The Company has been engaged with the regulatory agency, including technical discussions between the Company’s environmental firm and RWQCB staff, and has initiated the technical efforts to comply with the order. The Company submitted technical reports prepared by the environmental firm to the RWQCB and has received confirmation regarding the satisfaction of portions of the order. The Company also submitted a remedial action plan prepared by the environmental firm outlining the cleanup of soil, groundwater, and soil vapor at the site. The Company's contractors have installed new monitoring wells and have submitted plans and applications in order to initiate pilot testing of a soil vapor extraction system. The parties are continuing to work toward compliance with the October 2013 order and anticipate working cooperatively on any ultimate proposed cleanup and abatement work. The Company has accrued liabilities where it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the cost or amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Based on the latest determinations by the RWQCB and the draft remedial action plan, the Company determined a revised range of probable loss between $4.7 million and $7.2 million. G iven the uncertainties associated with environmental assessment and the remediation activities, the Company is unable to determine a best estimate within the range of loss. Therefore, the Company has recorded the minimum amount of probable loss as follows within the Company’s Balance Sheets.
(in thousands) | Accrued Liability |  | Other-Long Term Liability |  | Total
Balance at January 29, 2017 | $ | 620 |  |  | $ | 4,381 |  |  | $ | 5,001 |
Change in estimate | 2,186 |  |  | (2,186 | ) |  | — |
Utilization | (268 | ) |  | — |  |  | (268 | )
Balance at October 29, 2017 | $ | 2,538 |  |  | $ | 2,195 |  |  | $ | 4,733 |
These estimates could change as a result of changes in planned remedial actions, further actions from the regulatory agency, remediation technology, and other factors. Indemnification The Company has entered into agreements with its current and former executives and directors indemnifying them against certain liabilities incurred in connection with the performance of their duties. The Company’s Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws contain comparable indemnification obligations with respect to the Company’s current directors and employees. Product Warranties The Company’s general warranty policy provides for repair or replacement of defective parts. In some cases, a refund of the purchase price is offered. In certain instances the Company has agreed to other or additional warranty terms, including indemnification provisions. The product warranty accrual reflects the Company’s best estimate of probable liability under its product warranties. The Company accrues for known warranty issues if a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, and accrues for estimated incurred but unidentified issues based on historical experience. Historically, warranty expense has been immaterial to the Company’s consolidated financial statements. Earn-out Liability Pursuant to the terms of the amended earn-out arrangement ("Cycleo Earn-out") with the former shareholders of Cycleo SAS ("Cycleo Earn-out Beneficiaries"), which the Company acquired on March 7, 2012, the Company potentially may make payments totaling up to approximately $16.0 million based on the achievement of a combination of certain revenue and operating income milestones over a defined period ("Cycleo Defined Earn-out Period"). The Cycleo Defined Earn-out Period covers the period April 27, 2015 to April 26, 2020. For certain of the Cycleo Earn-out Beneficiaries, payment of the earn-out liability is contingent upon continued employment and is accounted for as post-acquisition compensation expense over the service period. The portion of the earn-out liability that is not dependent on continued employment is not considered as compensation expense. The Company has recorded a liability for the Cycleo Earn-out of $6.1 million and $6.1 million as of October 29, 2017 and January 29, 2017, respectively, of which $2.8 million is expected to be paid within twelve months. Pursuant to the terms of the Triune Earn-out with the former members of Triune ("Triune Earn-out Beneficiaries"), which the Company acquired on March 4, 2015, the Company potentially may make payments totaling up to approximately $70.0 million based on achievement of certain net revenue targets measured at each fiscal year end, starting with fiscal year 2016 and ending in fiscal year 2018. An additional payment of up to $16.0 million may be made based upon a combination of cumulative revenue and contribution margin targets measured from the acquisition date through the end of the Company’s fiscal year 2018. For certain of the Triune Earn-out Beneficiaries, payment of the earn-out liability is contingent upon continued employment and is accounted for as post-acquisition compensation expense over the service period. The portion of the earn-out liability that is not dependent on continued employment is not considered as compensation expense. The Triune Earn-out targets for fiscal years 2017 and 2016 were not met and the Company does not expect the fiscal year 2018 targets to be achieved. Refer to Note 6 for additional discussion regarding fair value measurements. Pursuant to the terms of the AptoVision Earn-out with the former shareholders of AptoVision ("AptoVision Earn-out Beneficiaries"), which the Company acquired on July 1, 2017, the Company potentially may make payments totaling up to approximately $47.0 million based on the achievement of a combination of certain net revenue, adjusted earnings and product development targets measured from the acquisition date through July 26, 2020. A summary of earn-out liabilities by classification follows:
| Balance at October 29, 2017 |  | Balance at January 29, 2017
(in thousands) | Cycleo |  | Triune |  | AptoVision |  | Total |  | Cycleo |  | Triune |  | AptoVision |  | Total
Compensation expense | $ | 4,662 |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | 4,662 |  |  | $ | 4,576 |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | 4,576 |
Not conditional upon continued employment | 776 |  |  | — |  |  | 17,188 |  |  | 17,964 |  |  | 949 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 949 |
Interest expense | 621 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 621 |  |  | 543 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 543 |
Total liability | $ | 6,059 |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | 17,188 |  |  | $ | 23,247 |  |  | $ | 6,068 |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | 6,068 |
Amount expected to be settled within twelve months | $ | 2,798 |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | 8,688 |  |  | $ | 11,486 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=68068213&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=73718637&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration