XML 41 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.3.1.900

Commitments, Contingencies and Other | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments, Contingencies and Other | Commitments, Contingencies and Other [1] Legal Proceedings:
(a) | On August 10, 2005, following the conclusion of an audit of the Company conducted by auditors for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“U.S. Customs”) during 2004 and 2005, U.S. Customs issued a report that asserts that certain commissions that the Company treated as “buying agents’ commissions” (which are non-dutiable) should be treated as “selling agents’ commissions” and hence are dutiable. Subsequently, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement notified the Company’s legal counsel that a formal investigation of the Company’s importing practices had been commenced as a result of the audit. In September 2007, U.S. Customs notified the Company that it had finalized its assessment of the underpaid duties at $1,400. The Company, with the advice of legal counsel, evaluated the liability in the case, including additional duties, interest and penalties, and believed that it was not likely to exceed $3,050, and accordingly, a liability for this amount was recorded as of December 31, 2009. The Company contested the conclusions of the U.S. Customs audit and filed a request for review and issuance of rulings thereon by U.S. Customs Headquarters, of Regulations and Rulings, under internal advice procedures. On September 20, 2010, U.S. Customs issued a ruling in the matter, concluding that the commissions paid by the Company pursuant to buying agreements entered into by the Company and one of its two buying agents under review were bona fide buying-agent commissions and, therefore, were non-dutiable. With respect to the second buying agent, U.S. Customs also ruled that beginning in February 2002, commissions paid by the Company were bona fide buying agent commissions and, therefore, were
non-dutiable. However, U.S. Customs found that the Company’s pre-2002 buying agreements with the second agent were legally insufficient to substantiate a buyer-buyer’s agent relationship between the Company and the agent and that commissions paid to the second agent under such buying agreements, in fact, were dutiable. On the basis of the U.S. Customs ruling, the Company reevaluated the liability in the case and believes that it is not likely to exceed $1,248 and the liability was reduced from $3,050 to such amount as of September 30, 2010. On November 21, 2011, U.S. Customs issued a pre-penalty notice to the Company in which it alleges that gross negligence by the Company resulted in an underpayment of duties with respect to certain pre-2002 buying agreements and claims that the Company owes $342 as an additional duty and $1,367 in monetary penalties. In its February 16, 2012 response to the pre-penalty notice, the Company submitted that it owes no additional duty and, further, did not through negligence or gross negligence fail to pay any duty or engage in conduct amounting to either gross negligence or negligence. The Company requested that U.S. Customs withdraw its proposal to issue a notice of penalty and take no further adverse action against the Company. In the event that U.S. Customs is not inclined to withdraw the pre-penalty notice after review of the Company’s response, the Company has requested the opportunity to make an oral presentation to U.S. Customs prior to the issuance of a notice of penalty. On June 26, 2014, the Company’s counsel met with U.S. Customs officials and, following the meeting, counsel submitted to U.S Customs a letter and the Company’s check in the amount of $342, representing the Company’s Offer in Compromise of the proposed government claim. The Offer in Compromise was filed without any admission or acceptance by the Company with respect to the proposed claim. In the event that U.S. Customs determines to issue a notice of penalty, the Company intends to file a petition for relief requesting a reduction of the level of culpability and mitigation of the penalty amount assessed. The maximum total amount of damages, including penalty, related to this matter is approximately $1,700 for which the Company has accrued $1,248.
(d) | The Company has been named as a defendant in certain other lawsuits in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, after consulting with legal counsel, the liabilities, if any, resulting from these matters should not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. It is the policy of management to disclose the amount or range of reasonably possible losses in excess of recorded amounts.
[2] Employment agreements: Robert Schmertz. On June 4, 2015, Robert Schmertz, the Company's Brand Director, submitted his resignation of employment to the Company effective immediately. A separation agreement dated June 4, 2015 between Mr. Schmertz and the Company provides to Mr. Schmertz, among other things, a severance of $381, which is being paid to him at regular intervals from the date of his resignation through December 31, 2016. Note O – Commitments, Contingencies and Other (continued) Edward R. Rosenfeld. On December 31, 2015, the Company entered into a new employment agreement with Edward R. Rosenfeld, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and the Chairman of the Board of Directors, to replace an existing employment agreement that expired on December 31, 2015. The agreement, which expires on December 31, 2018, provides for an annual salary of $800 through December 31, 2016, $850 in 2017 and $900 in 2018. In addition, pursuant to his new employment agreement, on December 31, 2015, Mr. Rosenfeld received a grant of 75,000 shares of the Company's common stock subject to certain restrictions and, on February 5, 2016, a further grant of 75,000 shares of the Company's common stock subject to certain restrictions. The restricted shares received by Mr. Rosenfeld on December 31, 2015 and February 5, 2016 were issued under the Company's 2006 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, and will vest in equal annual installments over a five-year period commencing on December 1, 2016 and March 5, 2017, respectively. Additional compensation and bonuses, if any, are at the sole discretion of the Board of Directors. Steven Madden. On January 3, 2012, the Company and its Creative and Design Chief, Steven Madden, entered into an amendment, dated as of December 31, 2011, to Mr. Madden's existing employment agreement with the Company (the “Amended Madden Agreement”). The Amended Madden Agreement, which extends the term of Mr. Madden's employment through December 31, 2023, provides for an annual base salary of approximately $9,667 in 2014, approximately $11,917 in 2015 and approximately $10,698 in 2016 and in each year thereafter through the end of the term of employment. Effective in 2012, the Amended Madden Agreement eliminates the annual cash bonuses payable to Mr. Madden based on EBITDA and the annual cash bonus in relation to new business contained in Mr. Madden's previously existing employment agreement and provides that all future cash bonuses will be at the sole discretion of the Company's Board of Directors. Further, the Amended Madden Agreement eliminates the annual non-accountable expense allowance of up to $200 provided to Mr. Madden under the previously existing employment agreement. Pursuant to the Amended Madden Agreement, on February 8, 2012, Mr. Madden was granted 1,463,056 restricted shares of the Company's common stock valued at approximately $40,000, which will vest in equal annual installments over seven years commencing on December 31, 2017 through December 31, 2023, subject to Mr. Madden's continued employment with the Company on each such vesting date. Pursuant to the Amended Madden Agreement, on June 30, 2012, Mr. Madden exercised his right to receive an additional restricted stock award and, on July 3, 2012, was granted 1,893,342 restricted shares of the Company's common stock, which will vest in the same manner as the February 8, 2012 grant. As consideration for the additional restricted stock grant, Mr. Madden's annual base salary in years subsequent to 2012 have been reduced as follows: approximately $6,125 in 2014, approximately $8,250 in 2015 and approximately $7,026 in 2016 and in each year thereafter through the end of the term of employment. In addition to the opportunity for discretionary cash bonuses, the Amended Madden Agreement entitles Mr. Madden to an annual life insurance premium reimbursement of up to $200, as well as an annual stock option grant and the potential for an additional one-time stock option grant based upon achievement of certain financial performance criteria. The Amended Madden Agreement also provides for the elimination of interest accrued after December 31, 2011 on an outstanding loan in the original principal amount of $3,000 made by the Company to Mr. Madden, the extension of the maturity date of such loan until December 31, 2023, and the forgiveness of 1/10th of the principal amount of the loan, together with accrued interest, annually over a ten-year period commencing on December 31, 2014 for so long as Mr. Madden continues to be employed by the Company on each such December 31st. Arvind Dharia. On February 2, 2015, the Company and its Chief Financial Officer, Arvind Dharia, entered into an amendment of Mr. Dharia's existing employment agreement. The amendment, among other things, extends the term of Mr. Dharia's employment agreement until December 31, 2017 and increases his annual base salary to $582 effective January 1, 2015 through the remainder of the term. Pursuant to the amendment, on February 2, 2015, Mr. Dharia received a restricted stock award of 15,000 restricted shares of the Company's common stock, which will vest in substantially equal annual installments over a five-year period commencing on February 2, 2016 through February 2, 2020. The agreement, as amended, provides for an annual bonus to Mr. Dharia at the discretion of the Board of Directors. Amelia Newton Varela. On September 4, 2015 the Company and Amelia Newton Varela, entered into an amendment of Ms. Varela's existing employment agreement dated January 1, 2014. The amendment, among other things, reflects the change in Ms. Varela's job title from Executive Vice President-Wholesale to the newly-created position of President of the Company and increases her annual base salary to $600 through the end of the term of her employment agreement on December 31, 2016. Ms. Varela's employment agreement, as amended, provides Ms. Varela the opportunity for annual Note O – Commitments, Contingencies and Other (continued) cash incentive bonuses and, pursuant thereto, on February 3, 2014, Ms. Varela received an option to purchase 100,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price equal to the market price of the Company's common stock on the last trading day prior to the grant. The option will vest in equal annual installments over a four-year period commencing on the first anniversary of the grant date. Awadhesh Sinha. Effective January 1, 2014, the Company entered into a new employment agreement with Awadhesh Sinha, the Company's Chief Operating Officer, to replace an existing employment agreement that expired at the end of 2013. The new agreement, which remains in effect until December 31, 2016, provides for an annual salary of $600, $630, and $661 for the three years ended December 31, 2014, 2015, and 2016 and provides the opportunity for annual cash and share based incentive bonuses. In addition, on January 15, 2014, Mr. Sinha received a grant of 29,886 shares of restricted common stock, which will vest in equal annual installments over a three-year period on each of December 15, 2014, December 15, 2015, and December 15, 2016. Karla Frieders. On September 4, 2015, the Company entered into a new employment agreement with Karla Frieders in connection with Ms. Frieders' appointment to the newly-created position of Chief Merchandising Officer of the Company. The agreement, which remains in effect until February 29, 2017, provides to Ms. Frieders an annual salary of $440 throughout the term of the agreement and an annual performance-based bonus for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2015 and 2016 in an amount to be determined at the discretion of the Company. [3] Letters of credit: At December 31, 2015, the Company had open letters of credit for the purchase of imported merchandise of approximately $331. [4] License agreements: On March 1, 2014, the Company entered into a license agreement with ABG Juicy Couture, LLC, under which the Company has the right to use the Juicy Couture® trademark in connection with the sale and marketing of women's footwear. The agreement requires the Company to pay the licensor a royalty equal to a percentage of net sales and a minimum royalty in the event that specified net sales targets are not achieved. The initial term of the agreement is effective through December 31, 2018. On February 9, 2011, the Company entered into a license agreement with Basic Properties America Inc. and BasicNet S.p.A, under which the Company has the right to use the Superga® trademark in connection with the sale and marketing of women's footwear. The agreement requires the Company to pay the licensor a royalty equal to a percentage of net sales and a minimum royalty in the event that specified net sales targets are not achieved. The agreement was amended on April 11, 2013 extending the original agreement through December 31, 2022. Future minimum royalty payments are $1,000 for 2016, $2,510 for 2017 through 2018, $2,000 for 2019 through 2020 and $2,000 for 2021 and after. Royalty expenses are included in the “cost of goods sold” section of the Company's Consolidated Statements of Income. [5] Related Party Transactions: On February 23, 2012, the Company entered into an agreement (the "2012 Consulting Agreement") with JLM Consultants, Inc., a company wholly-owned by John Madden, now deceased, formerly a director of the Company and the brother of Steven Madden, the Company's founder and Creative and Design Chief. The 2012 Consulting Agreement, replaced an earlier consulting agreement between the Company and JLM Consultants, Inc. that had expired by its terms on December 31, 2005 but under which JLM Consultants, Inc. had continued to provide consulting services for the consideration provided therein. Under the 2012 Consulting Agreement, Mr. Madden and JLM Consultants, Inc. provided consulting services to the Company with respect to the development of international sales of the Company. JLM Consultants, Note O – Commitments, Contingencies and Other (continued) Inc. received fees and expenses of $1,373, $1,240 and $1,310 in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, pursuant to the 2012 Consulting Agreement. Subsequent to 2011, Mr. Madden no longer received fees for his service as a director of the Company. As a result of the passing of Mr. Madden on October 26, 2015, the 2012 Consulting Agreement terminated and the consulting services formerly provided by Mr. Madden and JLM Consultants under the 2012 Consulting Agreement are now being performed by employees of the Company. [6] Concentrations: The Company maintains cash and cash equivalents with various major financial institutions which at times are in excess of the amount insured. In addition, the Company's marketable securities are principally held at three brokerage companies. During the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company did not purchase more than 10% of its merchandise from any single supplier. Total product purchases from China for the year ended December 31, 2015 were approximately 90%. During the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company did not purchase more than 10% of its merchandise from any single supplier. Total product purchases from China for the year ended December 31, 2014 were approximately 89%. During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company did not purchase more than 10% of its merchandise from any single supplier. Total product purchases from China for the year ended December 31, 2013 were approximately 85%. For the year ended December 31, 2015, Target, Inc. represented 12.2% of net sales and 16.7% of total accounts receivable. The Company did not have any other customers who account for more than 10% of total net sales or 10% of total accounts receivable. For the year ended December 31, 2014, Target, Inc. represented 10.5% of net sales and 12.8% of total accounts receivable. The Company did not have any other customers who account for more than 10% of total net sales or 10% of total accounts receivable. For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company did not have any customers who account for more than 10% of total net sales or 10% of total accounts receivable. Purchases are made primarily in United States dollars. [7] Valuation and qualifying accounts: The following is a summary of the allowance for chargebacks and doubtful accounts related to accounts receivable and the allowance for chargebacks related to the amount due from factor: Note O – Commitments, Contingencies and Other (continued)
| Balance at Beginning of Year |  | Additions |  | Deductions |  | Balance at End of Year
Year ended December 31, 2015 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Allowance for doubtful accounts | $ | 203 |  |  | $ | 162 |  |  | $ | 165 |  |  | $ | 200 |
Allowance for chargebacks | 18,199 |  |  | 76,085 |  |  | 75,244 |  |  | 19,040 |
Returns* | 5,160 |  |  | 5,868 |  |  | 6,206 |  |  | 4,822 |
Year ended December 31, 2014 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Allowance for doubtful accounts | 119 |  |  | 234 |  |  | 150 |  |  | 203 |
Allowance for chargebacks | 17,040 |  |  | 52,265 |  |  | 51,106 |  |  | 18,199 |
Returns* | 3,253 |  |  | 5,648 |  |  | 3,741 |  |  | 5,160 |
Year ended December 31, 2013 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Allowance for doubtful accounts | 30 |  |  | 399 |  |  | 310 |  |  | 119 |
Allowance for chargebacks | 18,108 |  |  | 41,812 |  |  | 42,880 |  |  | 17,040 |
Returns* | $ | 4,299 |  |  | $ | 702 |  |  | $ | 1,748 |  |  | $ | 3,253 |
* The return reserve does not take into consideration the Company's ability to resell returned products.
The following is a summary of goodwill and the related accumulated amortization for the:
| Year Ended December 31,
| 2015 |  | 2014 |  | 2013
Cost basis |  |  |  |  |
Balance at beginning of year | $ | 155,357 |  |  | $ | 96,730 |  |  | $ | 92,157 |
Acquisitions and purchase price adjustments | (17,662 | ) |  | 58,627 |  |  | 4,573 |
Balance at end of year | 137,695 |  |  | 155,357 |  |  | 96,730 |
Accumulated amortization |  |  |  |  |
Balance at beginning of year | 598 |  |  | 598 |  |  | 598 |
Balance at end of year | 598 |  |  | 598 |  |  | 598 |
Goodwill - net | $ | 137,097 |  |  | $ | 154,759 |  |  | $ | 96,132 |
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block] | [1] Legal Proceedings:
(a) | On August 10, 2005, following the conclusion of an audit of the Company conducted by auditors for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“U.S. Customs”) during 2004 and 2005, U.S. Customs issued a report that asserts that certain commissions that the Company treated as “buying agents’ commissions” (which are non-dutiable) should be treated as “selling agents’ commissions” and hence are dutiable. Subsequently, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement notified the Company’s legal counsel that a formal investigation of the Company’s importing practices had been commenced as a result of the audit. In September 2007, U.S. Customs notified the Company that it had finalized its assessment of the underpaid duties at $1,400. The Company, with the advice of legal counsel, evaluated the liability in the case, including additional duties, interest and penalties, and believed that it was not likely to exceed $3,050, and accordingly, a liability for this amount was recorded as of December 31, 2009. The Company contested the conclusions of the U.S. Customs audit and filed a request for review and issuance of rulings thereon by U.S. Customs Headquarters, of Regulations and Rulings, under internal advice procedures. On September 20, 2010, U.S. Customs issued a ruling in the matter, concluding that the commissions paid by the Company pursuant to buying agreements entered into by the Company and one of its two buying agents under review were bona fide buying-agent commissions and, therefore, were non-dutiable. With respect to the second buying agent, U.S. Customs also ruled that beginning in February 2002, commissions paid by the Company were bona fide buying agent commissions and, therefore, were
non-dutiable. However, U.S. Customs found that the Company’s pre-2002 buying agreements with the second agent were legally insufficient to substantiate a buyer-buyer’s agent relationship between the Company and the agent and that commissions paid to the second agent under such buying agreements, in fact, were dutiable. On the basis of the U.S. Customs ruling, the Company reevaluated the liability in the case and believes that it is not likely to exceed $1,248 and the liability was reduced from $3,050 to such amount as of September 30, 2010. On November 21, 2011, U.S. Customs issued a pre-penalty notice to the Company in which it alleges that gross negligence by the Company resulted in an underpayment of duties with respect to certain pre-2002 buying agreements and claims that the Company owes $342 as an additional duty and $1,367 in monetary penalties. In its February 16, 2012 response to the pre-penalty notice, the Company submitted that it owes no additional duty and, further, did not through negligence or gross negligence fail to pay any duty or engage in conduct amounting to either gross negligence or negligence. The Company requested that U.S. Customs withdraw its proposal to issue a notice of penalty and take no further adverse action against the Company. In the event that U.S. Customs is not inclined to withdraw the pre-penalty notice after review of the Company’s response, the Company has requested the opportunity to make an oral presentation to U.S. Customs prior to the issuance of a notice of penalty. On June 26, 2014, the Company’s counsel met with U.S. Customs officials and, following the meeting, counsel submitted to U.S Customs a letter and the Company’s check in the amount of $342, representing the Company’s Offer in Compromise of the proposed government claim. The Offer in Compromise was filed without any admission or acceptance by the Company with respect to the proposed claim. In the event that U.S. Customs determines to issue a notice of penalty, the Company intends to file a petition for relief requesting a reduction of the level of culpability and mitigation of the penalty amount assessed. The maximum total amount of damages, including penalty, related to this matter is approximately $1,700 for which the Company has accrued $1,248.
(d) | The Company has been named as a defendant in certain other lawsuits in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, after consulting with legal counsel, the liabilities, if any, resulting from these matters should not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. It is the policy of management to disclose the amount or range of reasonably possible losses in excess of recorded amounts.

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=51674963&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=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration