|
Legal Proceedings
|
3 Months Ended |
|---|---|
|
Sep. 28, 2013
|
|
| Legal Proceedings [Abstract] | |
| Legal Proceedings |
Legal Proceedings
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 our Junkfood subsidiary 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. On or about July 25, 2012, Junkfood received notification from the Commission staff alleging that Junkfood knowingly violated CPSA Section 15(b) and that it will recommend to the Commission a $900,000 civil penalty. We contend that the Commission's allegations are without merit.
On August 27, 2012, Junkfood responded to the Commission staff regarding its recommended penalty, setting forth a number of defenses and mitigating factors that could result in a much lower penalty, if any, ultimately imposed by a court should the matter proceed to litigation. On March 27, 2013, and on several subsequent occasions, the Commission requested additional information from Junkfood regarding the matter. While we will continue to defend against these allegations, we believe a risk of loss is probable. Based upon the terms of previously published CPSC settlements and related product recall notices, we believe if we settle the matter the minimum settlement amount would be $25,000. Should the Commission seek enforcement of the recommended civil penalty and ultimately prevail on its claims at trial, we could be required to pay amounts exceeding $900,000, along with interest and the Commission's costs and fees. During the quarter ended June 30, 2012, we recorded a liability for the most likely outcome within this range, and this liability remains recorded as of September 28, 2013.
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 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 is brought as a class action and seeks to include all of our 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 names as defendants Junkfood, Soffe, an independent contractor of Soffe, and a former employee, and seeks 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 seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, monetary damages and compensation, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-judgment interest. The discovery process in this matter is ongoing and the issue of class certification remains pending.
While we will continue to vigorously defend this action and believe we have a number of meritorious defenses to the claims alleged, we believe a risk of loss is probable. Based upon current information, we believe there is a range of likely outcomes between approximately $15,000 and $975,000. During the transition period ended September 28, 2013, we recorded a liability for the most likely outcome within this range. However, depending upon the scope and size of any certified class and whether any of the claims alleged are ultimately prevailed upon at trial, we could be required to pay amounts exceeding $975,000.
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.
|