Commitments and Contingencies
|12 Months Ended|
Sep. 30, 2017
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
The Sports Authority Bankruptcy Litigation
Soffe is involved in several related litigation matters stemming from The Sports Authority's ("TSA") March 2, 2016, filing of a voluntary petition(s) for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "TSA Bankruptcy"). Prior to such filing, Soffe provided TSA with products to be sold on a consignment basis pursuant to a "pay by scan" agreement and the litigation matters relate to Soffe's interest in the products it provided TSA on a consignment basis (the "Products") and the proceeds derived from the sale of such products (the "Proceeds").
TSA Stores, Inc. and related entities TSA Ponce, Inc. and TSA Caribe, Inc. filed an action against Soffe on March 16, 2016, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "TSA Action") essentially seeking a declaratory judgment that: (i) Soffe does not own the Products but rather has a security interest that is not perfected or senior and is avoidable; (ii) Soffe only has an unsecured claim against TSA; (iii) TSA and TSA's secured creditors have valid, unavoidable and senior rights in the Products and the Products are the property of TSA’s estate; (iv) Soffe does not have a perfected purchase money security interest in the Products; (v) Soffe is not entitled to a return of the Products; and (vi) TSA can continue to sell the Products and Soffe is not entitled to any proceeds from such sales other than as an unsecured creditor. The TSA Action also contains claims seeking to avoid Soffe's filing of a financing statement related to the Products as a preference and recover the value of that transfer as well as to disallow Soffe's claims until it has returned preferential transfers or their associated value. TSA also brings a claim for a permanent injunction barring Soffe from taking certain actions. We believe that many of the claims in the TSA Action, including TSA’s claim for injunction, are now moot as a result of Soffe’s agreement to permit TSA to continue selling the Products in TSA’s going-out-of-business sale.
On May 16, 2016, TSA lender Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Successor Administrative and Collateral Agent ("WSFS"), intervened in the TSA Action seeking a declaratory judgment that: (i) WSFS has a perfected interest in the Products and Proceeds that is senior to Soffe's interest; and (ii) the Proceeds paid to Soffe must be disgorged pursuant to an order previously issued by the court. WSFS's intervening complaint also contains a separate claim seeking the disgorgement of all Proceeds paid to Soffe along with accrued and unpaid interest.
Soffe has asserted counterclaims against WSFS in the TSA Action essentially seeking a declaratory judgment that: (i) WSFS is not perfected in the Products; and (ii) WSFS's interest in the Products is subordinate to Soffe's interest.
On May 24, 2016, Soffe joined an appeal filed by a number of TSA consignment vendors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware challenging an order issued in the TSA Bankruptcy that, should WSFS or TSA succeed in the TSA Action, granted TSA and/or WSFS a lien on all Proceeds received by Soffe and requiring the automatic disgorgement of such Proceeds. Soffe and another entity are the remaining consignment vendors pursuing this appeal.
Although we will continue to vigorously defend against the TSA Action and pursue the above-referenced counterclaims and appeal, should TSA and/or WSFS ultimately prevail on their claims, we could be forced to disgorge all Proceeds received and forfeit our ownership rights in any Products that remain in TSA's possession. We believe the range of possible loss in this matter is currently $0 to $3.3 million; however, it is too early to determine the probable outcome and, therefore, no amount has been accrued related to this matter.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
We previously received an inquiry from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) regarding a children's drawstring hoodie product sourced, distributed and sold by Junkfood, and its compliance with applicable product safety standards. The Commission subsequently investigated the matter, including whether Junkfood complied with the reporting requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”), and the garments in question were ultimately recalled. Junkfood subsequently received notification from the Commission staff alleging that Junkfood knowingly violated CPSA Section 15(b) and that the staff will recommend to the Commission a $900,000 civil penalty. We disputed the Commission's allegations and subsequently responded to the Commission staff regarding its recommended penalty, setting forth a number of defenses and mitigating factors that could have resulted in a much lower penalty, if any, ultimately imposed by a court had the matter proceeded to litigation.
We believe that any claims brought by the Commission seeking enforcement of the recommended penalty would be time-barred under any reasonable interpretation of the applicable civil statute of limitations. Accordingly, we consider this matter to be resolved, and during the quarter ended October 1, 2016, we reversed the liability previously recorded in connection with this matter.
California Wage and Hour Litigation
We were served with a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on or about March 13, 2013, by a former employee of our Delta Activewear business unit at our Santa Fe Springs, California distribution facility alleging violations of California wage and hour laws and unfair business practices with respect to meal and rest periods, compensation and wage statements, and related claims (the "Complaint"). The Complaint was brought as a class action and sought to include all of our Delta Activewear business unit's current and certain former employees within California who are or were non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. The Complaint also named as defendants Junkfood, Soffe, an independent contractor of Soffe, and a former employee, and sought to include all current and certain former employees of Junkfood, Soffe and the Soffe independent contractor within California who are or were non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. The Complaint sought injunctive and declaratory relief, monetary damages and compensation, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-judgment interest.
On or about August 22, 2014, we were served with an additional complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, by a former employee of Junkfood and two former employees of Soffe at our Santa Fe Springs, California distribution facility alleging violations of California wage and hour laws and unfair business practices the same or substantially similar to those alleged in the Complaint and seeking the same or substantially similar relief as sought in the Complaint. This complaint was brought as a class action and sought to include all current and certain former employees of Junkfood, Soffe, our Delta Activewear business unit, the Soffe independent contractor named in the Complaint and an individual employee of such contractor within California who are or were non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws.
On September 17, 2015, an agreement in principle was reached between all parties to settle the above-referenced wage and hour matters, with the defendants in the matters agreeing to pay an aggregate amount of $300,000 in exchange for a comprehensive release of all claims at issue in the matters. Delta Apparel, Inc., Soffe and Junkfood collectively agreed to contribute $200,000 towards the aggregate settlement amount, and we had this amount included in our accrued expenses as of October 1, 2016, and October 3, 2015. The settlement agreement was approved by the applicable court and these matters have been finally resolved, with the agreed amounts funded subsequent to the 2016 fiscal year-end.
In addition, at times we are party to various legal claims, actions and complaints. We believe that, as a result of legal defenses, insurance arrangements, and indemnification provisions with parties believed to be financially capable, such actions should not have a material effect on our operations, financial condition, or liquidity.
(b) Purchase Contracts
We have entered into agreements, and have fixed prices, to purchase yarn, finished fabric, and finished apparel and headwear products. At September 30, 2017, minimum payments under these contracts were as follows (in thousands):
(c) Letters of Credit
As of September 30, 2017, we had outstanding standby letters of credit totaling $0.4 million.
(d) Derivatives and Contingent Consideration
From time to time we may use interest rate swaps or other instruments to manage our interest rate exposure and reduce the impact of future interest rate changes. These financial instruments are not used for trading or speculative purposes. The following financial instruments were outstanding as of September 30, 2017:
From time to time, we may purchase cotton option contracts to economically hedge the risk related to market fluctuations in the cost of cotton used in our operations. We do not receive hedge accounting treatment for these derivatives. As such, the realized and unrealized gains and losses associated with them are recorded within cost of goods sold on the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations.
FASB Codification No. 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (“ASC 820”), defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. Assets and liabilities measured at fair value are grouped in three levels. The levels prioritize the inputs used to measure the fair value of the assets or liabilities. These levels are:
The following financial liabilities are measured at fair value on a recurring basis (in thousands):
The fair value of the interest rate swap agreements were derived from discounted cash flow analysis based on the terms of the contract and the forward interest rate curves adjusted for our credit risk, which fall in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. Fair values for debt are based on quoted market prices for the same or similar issues or on the current rates offered to us for debt of the same remaining maturities (a Level 2 fair value measurement).
In August 2013, we acquired Salt Life and issued contingent consideration payable in cash after the end of calendar year 2019 if financial performance targets involving the sale of Salt Life-branded products are met during the 2019 calendar year. We used a Monte Carlo model which used the historical results and projected cash flows based on the contractually defined terms, discounted as necessary, to estimate the fair value of the contingent consideration for Salt Life at acquisition, as well as to remeasure the contingent consideration related to the acquisition of Salt Life at each reporting period. Accordingly, the fair value measurement for contingent consideration falls in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.
At September 30, 2017, we had $1.6 million accrued in contingent consideration related to the acquisition of Salt Life, a $0.9 million reduction from the accrual at October 1, 2016. The reduction in the fair value of contingent consideration is based on the inputs into the Monte Carlo model, including the time remaining in the measurement period. The sales expectations for calendar year 2019 have been reduced from the sales expectations used in the valuation of contingent consideration at acquisition due to overall softness in the retail environment.
The Art Gun contingent consideration agreement concluded in fiscal year 2017, and no contingent consideration was paid under the terms of our acquisition of the Art Gun business.
The following table summarizes the fair value and presentation in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for derivatives as of September 30, 2017, and October 1, 2016.
(e) License Agreements
We have entered into license agreements that provide for royalty payments of net sales of licensed products as set forth in the agreements. These license agreements are within our branded segment. We have incurred royalty expense (included in selling, general and administrative expenses) of approximately $2.2 million, $8.2 million and $10.1 million during fiscal years 2017, 2016, and 2015, respectively. The reduction in royalty expense is due to the March 31, 2017, sale of the Junkfood business to JMJD Ventures, LLC. See Note 3—Divestitures for further information on this transaction.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef