Dollar General 2015 Annual Report Download - page 142

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 142 of the 2015 Dollar General annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 168

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152
  • 153
  • 154
  • 155
  • 156
  • 157
  • 158
  • 159
  • 160
  • 161
  • 162
  • 163
  • 164
  • 165
  • 166
  • 167
  • 168

10-K
DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
8. Commitments and contingencies (Continued)
December 17, 2015) (‘‘Sanchez’’); and Will Sisemore v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Northern District
of Oklahoma on December 21, 2015) (‘‘Sisemore’’).
The seventh matter, Chuck Hill v. Dolgencorp, LLC (‘‘Hill’’), was filed in Orleans County Superior
Court in Vermont on December 22, 2015, and subsequently removed to the United States District
Court for the District of Vermont on February 8, 2016.
In February and March 2016, the Company was notified of thirteen additional lawsuits alleging
similar claims concerning Dollar General private-label motor oil. All of these lawsuits were filed in
various federal district courts of the United States: Allen Brown v. Dollar General Corporation and DG
Retail, LLC (filed in the District of Colorado on February 10, 2016) (‘‘Brown’’); Miriam Fruhling v.
Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Southern District of Ohio on
February 10, 2016) (‘‘Fruhling’’); John Foppe v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed
in the Eastern District of Kentucky on February 10, 2016) (‘‘Foppe’’); Kevin Gadson v. Dolgencorp, LLC
(filed in the Southern District of New York on February 8, 2016) (‘‘Gadson’’); Bruce Gooel v.
Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Eastern District of Michigan on February 8, 2016) (‘‘Gooel’’); Janine
Harvey v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court for Nebraska on
February 10, 2016) (‘‘Harvey’’); Nicholas Meyer v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed
in the District of Kansas on February 9, 2016) (‘‘Meyer’’); Robert Oren v. Dollar General Corporation
and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Western District of Missouri on February 8, 2016) (‘‘Oren’’); Scott
Sheehy v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the District Court for Minnesota on
February 9, 2016) (‘‘Sheehy’’); Gerardo Solis v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in
the Northern District of Illinois on February 12, 2016) (‘‘Solis’’); Roberto Vega v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed
in the Central District of California on February 8, 2016) (‘‘Vega’’); Matthew Wait v. Dollar General
Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Western District of Arkansas on February 16, 2016)
(‘‘Wait’’); and James Taschner v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Eastern
District of Missouri on March 15, 2016) (‘‘Taschner’’).
The plaintiffs in the Taschner, Vega and Sanchez matters seek to proceed on a nationwide and
statewide class basis, while the plaintiffs in the other matters seek to proceed only on a statewide class
basis. Each plaintiff seeks, for himself or herself and the putative class he or she seeks to represent,
some or all of the following relief: compensatory damages, injunctive relief prohibiting the sale of the
products at issue and requiring the dissemination of corrective advertising, certain statutory damages
(including treble damages), punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
On February 1, 2016, the Sanchez plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his complaint without prejudice.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims and a motion to strike the class
allegations in the Barfoot matter on February 4, 2016; in the Hill matter on February 8, 2016; in the
Cooke matter on February 24, 2016; in the Sisemore matter on March 4, 2016; and in the Flinn matter
on March 10, 2016.
On March 7, 2016, the Company filed a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation requesting that all cases be transferred to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, or, in the alternative to the Western District of Missouri or the
Southern District of Florida, for consolidated pretrial proceedings (‘‘Motion to Transfer’’). After
receiving notice of the Company’s Motion to Transfer, the court stayed and administratively closed the
Barfoot matter pending a transfer decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
68