XML 38 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.3.1.900
Commitments and Contingencies
12 Months Ended
Jan. 30, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies

(17) Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

The Company leases its retail store, office space, and warehouse locations under non-cancelable operating leases. Certain of these leases include tenant allowances that are amortized over the life of the lease. In 2015, 2014 and 2013, the Company received tenant allowances of $5,652, $5,129 and $200, respectively. The Company expects to receive $16,705 in tenant allowances under leases during fiscal year 2016. Certain leases require the Company to pay contingent rental amounts based on a percentage of sales, in addition to real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance and other operating expenses associated with the leased premises. These agreements expire at various dates through July 2030 and generally contain three, five-year renewal options. Rent expense under these leases totaled $33,209, $30,520 and $27,118 for the fiscal years ended January 30, 2016, January 31, 2015 and February 1, 2014, respectively.

Future minimum lease payments for non-cancelable operating leases by fiscal year, as of January 30, 2016 are as follows:

 

Fiscal Year:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2016

 

 

36,840

 

2017

 

 

37,869

 

2018

 

 

37,408

 

2019

 

 

35,076

 

2020

 

 

33,914

 

Thereafter

 

 

114,597

 

 

 

 

295,704

 

 

Legal Matters

The Company is involved in various legal matters generally incidental to its business. After discussion with legal counsel, the Company believes that the disposition of these matters will not have a material impact on its consolidated financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations.

On March 12, 2014, the Company was added as a defendant to a pending consolidated action filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington, captioned as Lacey Market Place Associates II, LLC, et al. v. United Farmers of Alberta Co-Operative Limited, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-00383-JLR against United Farmers of Alberta Co-Operative Limited (the seller of Wholesale Sports), Wholesale Sports, Alamo Group, LLC and Donald F. Gaube and spouse. The amended complaint was filed by the landlords of two stores that the Company did not assume in the Company’s purchase of assets from Wholesale Sports. Such stores were formerly operated by Wholesale Sports in Skagit and Thurston Counties in Washington. The amended complaint alleged breach of lease, breach of collateral assignment, misrepresentation, intentional interference with contract, piercing the corporate veil and violation of Washington’s Fraudulent Transfer Act. The Company was named as a co-defendant with respect to the intentional interference with contract and fraudulent conveyance claims. The amended complaint sought against the Company and all defendants unspecified money damages, declaratory relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 28, 2015, the court in the Lacey Marketplace action granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the intentional interference claim against the Company, but declined to dismiss the fraudulent transfer claim.

Trial in the Lacey Marketplace action began March 2, 2015 and concluded March 6, 2015. On March 9, 2015, the jury in the trial awarded $11,887 against the defendants to the action, including the Company. The Company reviewed the decision and accrued $4,000 in its results for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015 related to this matter. The Company strongly disagreed with the jury’s verdict and filed post-trial motions seeking to have the verdict set aside. On July 30, 2015, the court granted the Company’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Both United Farmers of Alberta Co-Operative Limited, a co-defendant, and the plaintiff have appealed the court’s summary judgment ruling against the tortious interference claim, and the July 30, 2015 ruling to the appellate court and the appeal is currently in process. Based on the court’s most recent judgment in favor of the Company, the Company determined that the likelihood of loss in this case is not probable, and, as such, the Company reversed the previous accrual of $4,000 in its results for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016. The reversal of the $4,000 accrual is recorded in selling, general, and administrative expenses in the accompanying statements of income.