Annual report pursuant to Section 13 and 15(d)

Commitments and Contingencies

v2.4.0.8
Commitments and Contingencies
12 Months Ended
Sep. 27, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
(a) Litigation
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. On or about July 25, 2012, Junkfood 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 dispute the Commission's allegations.
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. The Commission has since requested additional information regarding the matter and issued a subpoena for records and information. While we will continue to defend against these allegations, we believe a risk of loss is probable. Based upon current information, including the terms of previously published Commission settlements and related product recall notices, should the Commission seek enforcement of the recommended civil penalty and ultimately prevail on its claims at trial we believe there is a range of likely outcomes between $25,000 and an amount 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 what we believe to be the most likely outcome within this range, and this liability remains recorded as of September 27, 2014.
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 is brought as a class action and seeks 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 names 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. Delta Apparel, Inc. is now the only remaining defendant in this case. 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.
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 is brought as a class action and seeks 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. Delta Apparel, Inc. and the contractor employee have since been voluntarily dismissed from the case and the remaining defendants are Junkfood, Soffe, and the Soffe contractor. The discovery process in this matter is ongoing and the issue of class certification remains pending.
While we will continue to vigorously defend these actions 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 collective range of likely outcomes between approximately $15,000 and $795,000. During the transition period September 28, 2013, we recorded a liability for what we believe to be the most likely outcome within this range, and this liability remains recorded as of September 27, 2014. Depending upon the scope and size of any certified class in either action and whether any of the claims alleged ultimately prevail at trial, we could be required to pay amounts exceeding $795,000.
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.
(b) Purchase Contracts
We have entered into agreements, and have fixed prices, to purchase yarn, natural gas, finished fabric, and finished apparel and headwear products. At September 27, 2014, minimum payments under these contracts were as follows (in thousands):
Yarn
$
12,555

Natural Gas
14

Finished fabric
2,880

Finished products
22,378

 
$
37,827


(c) Letters of Credit
As of September 27, 2014, 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 27, 2014:
 
Effective Date
 
Notational
Amount
 
LIBOR Rate
 
Maturity Date
Interest Rate Swap
9/9/2013
 
$15 million
 
1.1700
%
 
9/9/2016
Interest Rate Swap
9/9/2013
 
$15 million
 
1.6480
%
 
9/11/2017
Interest Rate Swap
9/19/2013
 
$15 million
 
1.0030
%
 
9/19/2016
Interest Rate Swap
9/19/2013
 
$15 million
 
1.4490
%
 
9/19/2017

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:
Level 1 – Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.
Level 2 – Inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for assets and liabilities, either directly or indirectly. These inputs include quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets and quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in market that are less active.
Level 3 – Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity for assets or liabilities and includes certain pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies and similar techniques.
The following financial liabilities are measured at fair value on a recurring basis (in thousands):
 
Fair Value Measurements Using
Period Ended
Total
 
Quoted Prices in
Active Markets for
Identical Assets
(Level 1)
 
Significant Other
Observable Inputs
(Level 2)
 
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
Interest Rate Swap
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
September 27, 2014
$
(438
)
 

 
$
(438
)
 

September 28, 2013
$
(906
)
 

 
$
(906
)
 

June 29, 2013
$
(133
)
 

 
$
(133
)
 

June 30, 2012
$
(209
)
 

 
$
(209
)
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contingent Consideration
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
September 27, 2014
$
(3,600
)
 

 

 
$
(3,600
)
September 28, 2013
$
(3,400
)
 

 

 
$
(3,400
)

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 curve adjusted for our credit risk, which fall in level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. We 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. Accordingly, the fair value measurement for contingent consideration falls in level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. The contingent consideration for Salt Life is remeasured at the end of each reporting period. See Note 2(m) - Impairment of Goodwill for further discussion.
The following table summarizes the fair value and presentation in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for derivatives as of September 27, 2014, September 28, 2013, and June 29, 2013 (in thousands).
 
September 27,
2014
 
September 28,
2013
 
June 29,
2013
Accrued expenses
$

 
$
(100
)
 
$
(49
)
Deferred tax liabilities
168

 
349

 
51

Other liabilities
(437
)
 
(806
)
 
(84
)
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
$
(269
)
 
$
(557
)
 
$
(82
)

(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 $11.1 million, $15.7 million, $15.2 million and $5.1 million during fiscal years 2014, 2013, 2012 and the transition period ended September 27, 2013, respectively.
At September 27, 2014, based on minimum sales requirements, future minimum royalty payments required under these license agreements were as follows (in thousands):
Fiscal Year
Amount

2015
$
1,606

2016
2,645

2017
121

2018
4

2019 and thereafter

 
$
4,376