XML 47 R33.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Feb. 02, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and contingencies | Commitments and contingencies Operating leases Signet occupies certain properties and holds machinery and vehicles under operating leases. Rental expense for operating leases is as follows:
(in millions) | Fiscal 2019 |  | Fiscal 2018 |  | Fiscal 2017
Minimum rentals | $ | 510.3 |  |  | $ | 528.1 |  |  | $ | 524.4 |
Contingent rent | 8.1 |  |  | 8.5 |  |  | 10.2 |
Sublease income | (1.1 | ) |  | (0.5 | ) |  | (0.6 | )
Total | $ | 517.3 |  |  | $ | 536.1 |  |  | $ | 534.0 |
The future minimum operating lease payments for operating leases having initial or non-cancelable terms in excess of one year are as follows:
(in millions) |
Fiscal 2020 | $ | 450.4 |
Fiscal 2021 | 408.4 |
Fiscal 2022 | 361.1 |
Fiscal 2023 | 312.0 |
Fiscal 2024 | 247.4 |
Thereafter | 755.2 |
Total | $ | 2,534.5 |
Contingent property liabilities Approximately 18 property leases had been assigned in the UK by Signet at February 2, 2019 (and remained unexpired and occupied by assignees at that date) and approximately 5 additional properties were sub-leased in the US and UK at that date. Should the assignees or sub-tenants fail to fulfill any obligations in respect of those leases or any other leases which have at any other time been assigned or sub-leased, Signet or one of its subsidiaries may be liable for those defaults. The number of such claims arising to date has been small, and the liability, which is charged to the income statement as it arises, has not been material. Capital commitments At February 2, 2019 Signet has committed to spend $52.5 million (February 3, 2018: $46.9 million) related to capital commitments. These commitments principally relate to the renovation of stores and capital investments in IT. Legal proceedings Employment practices As previously reported, in March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the “Claimants”) filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI opposed the motion. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants’ disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date of trial for the Claimants’ compensation claims and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants’ promotion claims. The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants’ motion to certify a disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII, and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay Act. On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants’ emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015. Claimants’ motion was granted in part and denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015, which SJI opposed. April 27, 2015, the arbitrator issued an order denying the Claimants’ Motion. SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator’s Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015, which Claimants opposed. On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted SJI’s Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator’s Class Certification Award in part and denied it in part. On December 3, 2015, SJI filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI’s Notice of Appeal of the District Court’s November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which Claimants opposed. The arbitrator issued an order denying SJI’s Motion to Stay on February 22, 2016.SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with the Second Circuit on March 16, 2016. The matter was fully briefed and oral argument was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on November 2, 2016. On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in the AAA Claimants’ Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims, which SJI opposed. On June 15, 2015, the arbitrator granted the Claimants’ motion. On March 6, 2017, Claimants filed Claimants’ Motion for Conditional Certification of Claimants’ Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice, which SJI opposed The arbitrator heard oral argument on Claimants’ Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on February 29, 2016, issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award and Order Re Claimants’ Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, conditionally certifying Claimants’ Equal Pay Act claims as a collective action, and tolling the statute of limitations on EPA claims to October 16, 2003 to ninety days after notice issues to the putative members of the collective action. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court’s Consideration Of Respondent’s Motion To Vacate Arbitrator’s Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants’ Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 10, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court’s Resolution Of Sterling’s Motion To Vacate Arbitrator’s Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants’ Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016, which Claimants opposed. On April 5, 2016, the arbitrator denied SJI’s Motion. On March 23, 2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator’s Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants’ Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, which Claimants opposed. SJI’s Motion was denied on May 22, 2016. On May 31, 2016, SJI filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff’s opinion and order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which Claimant’s opposed. On June 1, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed SJI’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an order amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration. The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5, 2016, and ordered into effect the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016, which Claimants opposed. The matter was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on July 22, 2016. The motion was granted in part on January 27, 2017. Notice to EPA collective action members was issued on May 3, 2016, and the opt-in period for these notice recipients closed on August 1, 2016. Approximately, 10,314 current and former employees submitted consent forms to opt in to the collective action; however, some have withdrawn their consents. The number of valid consents is disputed and yet to be determined. SJI believes the number of valid consents to be approximately 9,124. On July 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its unanimous Summary Order that held that the absent class members “never consented” to the Arbitrator determining the permissibility of class arbitration under the agreements, and remanded the matter to the District Court to determine whether the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by certifying the Title VII class that contained absent class members who had not opted in the litigation. On August 7, 2017, SJI filed its Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class Determination Award relative to absent class members with the District Court. The matter was fully briefed and an oral argument was heard on October 16, 2017. On January 15, 2018, District Court granted SJI’s Motion finding that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by binding non-parties (absent class members) to the Title VII claim. The District Court further held that the RESOLVE Agreement does not permit class action procedures, thereby, reducing the Claimants in the Title VII matter from 70,000 to 254. Claimants dispute that the number of claimants in the Title VII is 254. On January 18, 2018, the Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument before the Second Circuit occurred on May 7, 2018. SJI currently awaits the Second Circuit’s decision on this appeal. On November 10, 2017, SJI filed in the arbitration motions for summary judgment, and for decertification, of Claimants’ Equal Pay Act and Title VII promotions claims. On January 30, 2018, oral argument on SJI’s motions was heard. On January 26, 2018, SJI filed a Motion to Vacate The Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award And Tolling Order asserting that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by conditionally certifying the Equal Pay Act claim and allowing the absent claimants to opt-in the litigation. On March 12, 2018, the Arbitrator denied SJI’s Motion to Vacate The Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award and Tolling Order. SJI still has a pending motion seeking decertification of the EPA Collective Action before the Arbitrator. On March 19, 2018, the Arbitrator issued an Order partially granting SJI’s Motion to Amend the Arbitrator’s November 2, 2017, Bifurcated Seventh Amended Case Management Plan resulting in a continuance of the May 14, 2018 trial date. A new trial date has not been set. SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and has been defending the case vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. Also, as previously reported, on September 23, 2008, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a lawsuit against SJI in the US District Court for the Western District of New York. This suit was settled on May 5, 2017, as further described below. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that SJI engaged in intentional and disparate impact gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female retail store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present. The EEOC asserted claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female employees subjected to these alleged practices. Non-expert fact discovery closed in mid-May 2013. In September 2013, SJI made a motion for partial summary judgment on procedural grounds, which was referred to a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge heard oral arguments on the summary judgment motion in December 2013. On January 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report, Recommendation and Order, recommending that the Court grant SJI’s motion for partial summary judgment and dismiss the EEOC’s claims in their entirety. The EEOC filed its objections to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling and SJI filed its response thereto. The District Court Judge heard oral arguments on the EEOC’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling on March 7, 2014 and on March 11, 2014 entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice. On May 12, 2014, the EEOC filed its Notice of Appeal of the District Court Judge’s dismissal of the action to United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties fully briefed the appeal and oral argument occurred on May 5, 2015. On September 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision vacating the District Court’s order and remanding the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. SJI filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and En Banc Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was denied on December 1, 2015. On December 4, 2015, SJI filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit a Motion Of Appellee Sterling Jewelers Inc. For Stay Of Mandate Pending Petition For Writ Of Certiorari. The Motion was granted by the Second Circuit on December 10, 2015. SJI filed a Petition For Writ Of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States on April 29, 2016, which was denied. The case was remanded to the Western District of New York and on November 2, 2016, the Court issued a case scheduling order. On January 25, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion to extend case scheduling order deadlines. The motion was granted on January 27, 2017. On May 5, 2017 the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York approved and entered the Consent Decree jointly proposed by the EEOC and SJI, resolving all of the EEOC’s claims against SJI in this litigation for various injunctive relief including but not limited to the appointment of an employment practices expert to review specific policies and practices, a compliance officer to be employed by SJI, as well as obligations relative to training, notices, reporting and record-keeping. The Consent Decree does not require an outside third party monitor or require any monetary payment. The duration of the Consent Decree is three years and three months, expiring on August 4, 2020. Shareholder Actions In August 2016, two alleged Company shareholders each filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its then-current Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Financial Officer (Nos. 16-cv-6728 and 16-cv-6861, the “S.D.N.Y. cases”). On September 16, 2016, the Court consolidated the S.D.N.Y. cases under case number 16-cv-6728. On April 3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of persons that acquired the Company’s securities on or between August 29, 2013, and February 27, 2017, naming as defendants the Company, its then-current and former Chief Executive Officers, and its current and former Chief Financial Officers. The second amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the Company’s business and earnings by (i) failing to disclose that the Company was allegedly having issues ensuring the safety of customers’ jewelry while in the Company’s custody for repairs, which allegedly damaged customer confidence; (ii) making misleading statements about the Company’s credit portfolio; and (iii) failing to disclose reports of sexual harassment allegations that were raised by claimants in an ongoing pay and promotion gender discrimination class arbitration (the “Arbitration”). The second amended complaint alleged that the Company’s share price was artificially inflated as a result of the alleged misrepresentations and sought unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees. In March 2017, two other alleged Company shareholders each filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and its then-current and former Chief Executive Officers (Nos. 17-cv-875 and 17-cv-923, the “N.D. Tex. cases”). Those complaints were nearly identical to each other and alleged that the defendants’ statements concerning the Arbitration violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The N.D. Tex. cases were subsequently transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated with the S.D.N.Y. cases (the “Consolidated Action”). On July 27, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel in the Consolidated Action. On August 3, 2017, the Court ordered the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action to file a third amended complaint by September 29, 2017. On September 29, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended complaint that covered a putative class period of August 29, 2013, through May 24, 2017, and that asserted substantially similar claims to the second amended complaint, except that it omitted the claim based on defendants’ alleged misstatements concerning the security of customers’ jewelry while in the Company’s custody for repairs. The defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on December 1, 2017. On December 4, 2017, the Court entered an order permitting the lead plaintiff to amend its complaint as of right by December 22, 2017, and providing that the lead plaintiff would not be given any further opportunity to amend its complaint to address the issues raised in the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On December 15, 2017, Nebil Aydin filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its current Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (No. 17-cv-9853). The Aydin complaint alleged that the defendants made misleading statements regarding the Company’s credit portfolio between August 24, 2017, and November 21, 2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sought unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees. On January 7, 2018, the Aydin case was consolidated into the Consolidated Action. On December 22, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action filed its fourth amended complaint, which asserted substantially the same claims as its third amended complaint for an expanded class period of August 28, 2013, through December 1, 2017. On January 26, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint. This motion was fully briefed as of March 9, 2018. On March 20, 2018, the Court granted the lead plaintiff leave to file a fifth amended complaint. On March 22, 2018, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action filed its fifth amended complaint which asserts substantially the same claims as its fourth amended complaint for an expanded class period of August 29, 2013, through March 13, 2018. The prior motion to dismiss was denied as moot. On March 30, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the fifth amended complaint. On November 26, 2018, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Discovery is ongoing in this action. On March 27, 2019, two actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by investment funds that allegedly purchased the Company’s stock. The actions are captioned Pennant Master Fund LP et al. v. Signet Jewelers et al., Civ. No. 19-2757, and The Alger Funds et al. v. Signet Jewelers et al., Civ. No. 19-2758, and name the Company and its current and former Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officers as defendants. Both complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b), 18, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and common law fraud, based on alleged misstatements and omissions concerning the Company’s credit portfolio. These claims are substantially the same as the credit-related claims in the Consolidated Action, except that the Pennant action alleges misstatements for the period August 29, 2013, to June 2, 2016, and the Alger Funds action alleges misstatements for the period August 29, 2013, to August 25, 2016. Derivative Action On September 1, 2017, Josanne Aungst filed a putative shareholder derivative action entitled Aungst v. Light, et al., No. CV-2017-3665, in the Court of Common Pleas for Summit County Ohio. The complaint in this action, which purports to have been brought by Ms. Aungst on behalf of the Company, names certain current and former directors and officers of the Company as defendants and alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement. The complaint challenges certain public disclosures and conduct relating to the allegations that were raised by the claimants in the Arbitration. The complaint also alleges that the Company’s share price was artificially inflated as a result of alleged misrepresentations and omissions. The complaint seeks money damages on behalf of the Company, changes to the Company’s corporate governance, and other equitable relief, as well as plaintiff’s legal fees and costs. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint was granted on February 28, 2019. On March 26, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The Company believes that the claims brought in these shareholder actions are without merit and cannot estimate a range of potential liability, if any, at this time. Regulatory Matters On January 16, 2019, Sterling Jewelers Inc., (“Sterling”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Company, without admitting or denying any of the allegations, findings of fact, or conclusions of law (except to establish jurisdiction), entered into a Consent Order with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the "CFPB") and New York Attorney General (the “NY AG”) settling a previously disclosed investigation of certain in-store credit practices, promotions, and payment protection products (the "Consent Order"). Among other things, the Consent Order requires Sterling to (i) submit an accurate written compliance report to the CFPB; (ii) pay an $10,000,000 civil money penalty to the CFPB; (iii) pay a $1,000,000 civil money penalty to the NY AG: and (iv) maintain policies and procedures related to the issuance of credit cards, including with respect to credit applications, credit financing terms and conditions, and any related add-on products that are reasonably designed to ensure consumer knowledge or consent. All payments required by the Consent Order were made in February 2019. We continue to work to ensure compliance with the Consent Order, which may result in us incurring additional costs. See Item 1A for risks relating to the CFPB and our continued compliance with the Consent Order.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration