Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

Legal Matters

v2.4.0.8
Legal Matters
9 Months Ended
Nov. 01, 2014
Legal Matters  
Legal Matters

 

16.  Legal Matters

 

A former licensee of JA Apparel Corp., a subsidiary of JA Holding (“JA Apparel”), initiated an arbitration proceeding against JA Apparel under license agreements which the former licensee terminated.  The former licensee alleges that JA Apparel breached the license agreements for the manufacture of certain Joseph Abboud® branded merchandise.  We do not believe that JA Apparel breached the license agreements and we believe that the former licensee wrongfully terminated the license agreements.  The arbitration proceedings have concluded but a decision has not been rendered.  We will continue to defend this matter vigorously.  The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time.  We do not believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

 

On July 30, 2013, Matthew B. Johnson, et al., on behalf of themselves and all Ohio residents similarly situated (the “Johnson Plaintiffs”), filed a putative class action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern District (Case No. 2:13-cv-756).  The Complaint alleges, among other things, deceptive sales and marketing practices by Jos. A. Bank relating to its use of the words “free” and “regular price.”  The Complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and costs and disbursements (including attorneys’ fees).  Upon the motion of Jos. A. Bank, the U.S. District Court dismissed the Complaint, without prejudice, and the Johnson Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the same U.S. District Court making substantially the same allegations as in the original Complaint.  On February 21, 2014, Jos. A. Bank filed a motion to dismiss and, on August 19, 2014, the Court dismissed the class claims and certain other breach of contract claims.  We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims.

 

In December 2013, Jos. A. Bank received a subpoena from the Ohio Attorney General requiring the production of certain information relating to its advertising and marketing practices.  Jos. A. Bank produced information in response to the subpoena, cooperated with further information requests and is having ongoing communications with the Ohio Attorney General’s office.

 

On July 9, 2014, David Lucas and Eric Salerno, on behalf of themselves and all California residents similarly situated, filed a putative class action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S. District Court for Southern California (Case No. ‘14CV1631LAB JLB).  The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Jos. A. Bank violated the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act with its comparative price advertising, price discounts and free apparel promotions.  The Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as a class action, permanent injunction, actual and compensatory damages, restitution including disgorgement of profits and unjust enrichment, costs and attorney fees.  We intend to vigorously defend the case.

 

Please see the discussion under Part II, Item 1, Legal Proceedings, regarding a hearing scheduled for February 9, 2015 in the matter of State-Boston Retirement System v. Wildrick, et al. and the ability for shareholders of Men’s Wearhouse to file objections with the Court prior thereto.

 

In addition, we are involved in various routine legal proceedings, including ongoing litigation, incidental to the conduct of our business.  Management does not believe that any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.