Annual report pursuant to Section 13 and 15(d)

Litigation, Other Contingencies and Guarantees

v2.4.0.8
Litigation, Other Contingencies and Guarantees
12 Months Ended
Feb. 01, 2014
Litigation, Other Contingencies and Guarantees [Abstract]  
Litigation, Other Contingencies and Guarantees
Litigation,  Other Contingencies and Guarantees
   
Litigation   
Macy’s Litigation
On August 16, 2012, Macy’s, Inc. and Macy’s Merchandising Group, Inc. (together the Plaintiffs) filed suit against J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, alleging that the Company tortiously interfered with, and engaged in unfair competition relating to a 2006 agreement between Macy’s and Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (MSLO) by entering into a partnership agreement with MSLO in December 2011. The Plaintiffs seek primarily to prevent the Company from implementing our partnership agreement with MSLO as it relates to products in the bedding, bath, kitchen and cookware categories. The suit was consolidated with an already-existing breach of contract lawsuit by the Plaintiffs against MSLO, and a bench trial commenced on February 20, 2013. On March 7, 2013, the judge adjourned the trial until April 8, 2013, and ordered the parties into mediation. The parties did not reach a settlement, and the trial continued on April 8, 2013. The parties concluded their presentations of evidence on April 26, 2013, and completed post-trial briefs in late May, 2013. The court held closing arguments on August 1, 2013. The court has not yet issued a final decision in the case. On October 21, 2013, the Company and MSLO entered into an amendment of the partnership agreement, providing in part that the Company will not sell MSLO-designed merchandise in the bedding, bath, kitchen and cookware categories.  On January 2, 2014, MSLO and Macy’s announced that they had settled the case as to each other, and MSLO was subsequently dismissed as a defendant.  While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.
  
Other Legal Proceedings
We are subject to various other legal and governmental proceedings involving routine litigation incidental to our business. Reserves have been established based on our best estimates of our potential liability in certain of these matters. These estimates have been developed in consultation with in-house and outside counsel. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, management currently believes that the final resolution of these actions, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.
      
Contingencies
As of February 1, 2014, we estimated our total potential environmental liabilities to range from $17 million to $24 million and recorded our best estimate of $19 million in Other accounts payable and accrued expenses and Other liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of that date. This estimate covered potential liabilities primarily related to underground storage tanks, remediation of environmental conditions involving our former drugstore locations and asbestos removal in connection with approved plans to renovate or dispose of our facilities. We continue to assess required remediation and the adequacy of environmental reserves as new information becomes available and known conditions are further delineated. If we were to incur losses at the upper end of the estimated range, we do not believe that such losses would have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.
 
Guarantees
As of February 1, 2014, we had a guarantee totaling $20 million for the maximum exposure on insurance reserves established by a former subsidiary included in the sale of our Direct Marketing Services business.
 
In connection with the sale of the operations of our outlet stores, we assigned leases on certain outlet store locations to the purchaser.  In the event that the purchaser fails to make the required lease payments, we continue for a period of time to be liable for lease payments to the landlords of several of the leased stores. The purchaser's obligations under the lease are guaranteed to us by certain principals and affiliates of the purchaser. However, the purchaser has elected to exit the outlet business and is attempting to terminate the leases with the landlords. Consequently, we expect that our continuing obligations under each lease will be extinguished in connection with each termination. As of February 1, 2014, our maximum liability in connection with the assigned leases is $7 million.    
 
In connection with the redemption of two million of our SPG REIT units in 2012 (see Note 17), we agreed to make future capital contributions to SPG under certain circumstances.  Capital contributions would be required only if (i) one or more unsecured senior notes or term loans of SPG are in default and (ii) the aggregate amount received and/or realized by the lenders with respect to such notes or loans upon the exhaustion of all other remedies available to them is less than the maximum total amount of all capital contribution commitments up to a maximum of the aggregate amount due under such notes or loans at the time of such default and demand under the capital contribution commitment agreements. Our contribution obligation was subject to a maximum aggregate amount of $360 million, and was proportionate to all similar commitments provided by the Company and other parties. On November 19, 2013 (Conversion Date), our SPG REIT units were converted to shares and in December 2013, we sold our remaining SPG REIT shares. The capital contribution obligation terminated 90 days from the Conversion Date on February 17, 2014.