Annual report pursuant to Section 13 and 15(d)

Commitments and Contingencies

v3.3.1.900
Commitments and Contingencies
12 Months Ended
Oct. 03, 2015
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. 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 October 3, 2015.
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.
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 2 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.
On September 17, 2015, an agreement in principle was reached between all parties to settle the above-referenced wage and hour matters. Pursuant to that agreement, the defendants in the matters have agreed 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 have collectively agreed to contribute $200,000 towards the aggregate settlement amount, which is in our accrued expenses as of October 3, 2015. The settlement agreement requires the approval of the applicable courts before it can be finalized and the parties are currently seeking the necessary approvals.
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 October 3, 2015, minimum payments under these contracts were as follows (in thousands):
Yarn
$
39,479

Natural Gas
328

Finished fabric
3,078

Finished products
19,862

 
$
62,747


(c) Letters of Credit
As of October 3, 2015, 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 October 3, 2015:
 
Effective Date
 
Notational
Amount
 
LIBOR Rate
 
Maturity Date
Interest Rate Swap
September 9, 2013
 
$15 million
 
1.1700
%
 
September 9, 2016
Interest Rate Swap
September 9, 2013
 
$15 million
 
1.6480
%
 
September 11, 2017
Interest Rate Swap
September 19, 2013
 
$15 million
 
1.0030
%
 
September 19, 2016
Interest Rate Swap
September 19, 2013
 
$15 million
 
1.4490
%
 
September 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
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
October 3, 2015
$
(697
)
 

 
$
(697
)
 

September 27, 2014
$
(438
)
 

 
$
(438
)
 

September 28, 2013
$
(906
)
 

 
$
(906
)
 

June 29, 2013
$
(133
)
 

 
$
(133
)
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contingent Consideration
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
October 3, 2015
$
(3,100
)
 

 

 
$
(3,100
)
September 27, 2014
$
(3,600
)
 

 

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

 

 
$
(3,400
)

The fair values of the interest rate swap agreements were derived from discounted cash flow analyses based on the terms of the contracts 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(n) - Contingent Consideration for further discussion.
The following table summarizes the fair value and presentation in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for derivatives as of October 3, 2015, September 27, 2014, and September 28, 2013 (in thousands).
 
October 3,
2015
 
September 27,
2014
 
September 28,
2013
Accrued expenses
$
(184
)
 
$

 
$
(100
)
Deferred tax liabilities
269

 
168

 
349

Other liabilities
(514
)
 
(437
)
 
(806
)
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
$
(429
)
 
$
(269
)
 
$
(557
)

(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 $10.1 million, $11.1 million, $5.1 million and $15.7 million during fiscal years 2015, 2014, the transition period ended September 28, 2013, and fiscal year 2013, respectively.
At October 3, 2015, based on minimum sales requirements, future minimum royalty payments required under these license agreements were as follows (in thousands):
Fiscal Year
Amount

2016
$
522

2017
47

2018
5

2019

2020 and thereafter

 
$
574