Abercrombie & Fitch 2008 Annual Report Download - page 20

Table of Contents
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
A&F is a defendant in lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business.
On June 23, 2006, Lisa Hashimoto, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc., was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. In
that action, plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of a putative class of California store managers employed in
Hollister and abercrombie stores, that they were entitled to receive overtime pay as “non-exempt”
employees under California wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief,
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and attorneys’ fees and costs. The
defendants answered the complaint on August 21, 2006, denying liability. On June 23, 2008 the
defendants settled all claims of Hollister and abercrombie store managers who served in stores from
June 23, 2002 through April 30, 2004, but continued to oppose the plaintiffs’ remaining claims. On
July 29, 2008 the Court certified a class consisting of all store managers who served at Hollister and
abercrombie stores in California from May 1, 2004 through the future date upon which the action
concludes. The parties are continuing to litigate the claims of that putative class.
On September 2, 2005, a purported class action, styled Robert Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch
Company, et al., was filed against A&F and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of a purported class of all persons who purchased or acquired
shares of A&F’s Common Stock between June 2, 2005 and August 16, 2005. In September and October
of 2005, five other purported class actions were subsequently filed against A&F and other defendants in
the same Court. All six securities cases allege claims under the federal securities laws related to sales of
Common Stock by certain defendants and to a decline in the price of A&F’s Common Stock during the
summer of 2005, allegedly as a result of misstatements attributable to A&F. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages. On November 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all of these purported class actions
into the first-filed case was filed by some of the plaintiffs. A&F joined in that motion. On March 22,
2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and these actions (together with the federal court
derivative cases described in the following paragraph) were consolidated for purposes of motion practice,
discovery and pretrial proceedings. A consolidated amended securities class action complaint (the
“Complaint”) was filed on August 14, 2006. On October 13, 2006, all defendants moved to dismiss that
Complaint. On August 9, 2007, the Court denied the motions to dismiss. On September 14, 2007,
defendants filed answers denying the material allegations of the Complaint and asserting affirmative
defenses. On October 26, 2007, plaintiffs moved to certify their purported class. After briefings and
argument, the motion was submitted on March 24, 2009.
On September 16, 2005, a derivative action, styled The Booth Family Trust v. Michael S. Jeffries, et
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, naming A&F as a
nominal defendant and seeking to assert claims for unspecified damages against nine of A&F’s present
and former directors, alleging various breaches of the directors’ fiduciary duty and seeking equitable and
monetary relief. In the following three months (October, November and December of 2005), four similar
derivative actions were filed (three in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
and one in the Court of Common Pleas for Franklin County, Ohio) against present and former directors of
A&F alleging various breaches of the directors’ fiduciary duty allegedly arising out of the same matters
alleged in the Ross case and seeking equitable and monetary relief on behalf of A&F. A&F is also a
nominal defendant in each of the four later derivative actions. On November 4, 2005, a motion to
consolidate all of the federal court derivative actions with the purported securities law class actions
described in the preceding paragraph was filed. On March 22, 2006, the motion to consolidate was
granted, and the federal court derivative actions have been consolidated with the aforesaid purported
securities law class actions for purposes of motion practice,
18
Source: ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO /DE/, 10-K, March 27, 2009 Powered by Morningstar® Document Research℠