Neiman Marcus 2014 Annual Report Download - page 28

Table of Contents
Bergdorf Goodman Stores. We operate two Bergdorf Goodman stores, both of which are located in Manhattan at 58th Street and Fifth Avenue. The
following table sets forth certain details regarding these stores:






New York City (Main)(1)
1901
250,000
New York City (Men’s)(1)
1991
66,000
(1) Leased.
Last Call Stores. As of September 15, 2015, we operated 43 Last Call stores in 16 states that average approximately 25,000 square feet each in size.
Distribution, Support and Office Facilities. We own approximately 41 acres of land in Longview, Texas, where our primary distribution facility is
located. The Longview facility is the principal merchandise processing and distribution facility for Neiman Marcus stores. In the spring of 2013, we opened
a 198,000 square foot distribution facility in Pittston, Pennsylvania to support the future growth and initiatives of the Company. The facility in Pittston
replaced the distribution facility we previously utilized in Dayton, New Jersey. We lease four regional service centers in New York, Florida, Texas and
California.
We also own approximately 50 acres of land in Irving, Texas, where our online operating headquarters and distribution facility are located. In
addition, we currently utilize another regional distribution facility in Dallas, Texas to support our online operations. We also utilize a 108,000 square foot
facility outside of Munich, Germany to support our MyTheresa operations.
Lease Terms. We lease a significant percentage of our stores and, in certain cases, the land upon which our stores are located. The terms of these
leases, assuming all outstanding renewal options are exercised, range from three to 130 years. The lease on the Bergdorf Goodman Main Store expires in
2050, with no renewal options, and the lease on the Bergdorf Goodman Men’s Store expires in 2020, with a 10-year renewal option. Most leases provide for
monthly fixed rentals or contingent rentals based upon revenues in excess of stated amounts and normally require us to pay real estate taxes, insurance,
common area maintenance costs and other occupancy costs.
For further information on our properties and lease obligations, see Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations” and Note 12 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 15.

Employment and Consumer Class Actions Litigation. On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and Equitable Relief was filed
against the Company, Newton Holding, LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by
Sheila Monjazeb, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated. On July 12, 2010, all defendants except for the
Company were dismissed without prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was dismissed by Ms. Monjazeb and refiled in the Superior Court of
California for San Francisco County. This complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit originally filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, sought
monetary and injunctive relief and alleged that the Company has engaged in various violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions
Code, including without limitation, by (i) asking employees to work “off the clock,” (ii) failing to provide meal and rest breaks to its employees,
(iii) improperly calculating deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees and (iv) failing to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during shifts. The
Monjazeb and Tanguilig class actions were deemed “related” cases and were then brought before the same trial court judge. On October 24, 2011, the court
granted the Company’s motion to compel Ms. Monjazeb and Juan Carlos Pinela (a co-plaintiff in the Tanguilig case) to arbitrate their individual claims in
accordance with the Company’s Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing their ability to pursue a class action in court. However, the court’s order
compelling arbitration did not apply to Ms. Tanguilig because she is not bound by the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement. Further, the court determined that
Ms. Tanguilig could not be a class representative of employees who are subject to the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative class
action to those associates who were employed between December 2003 and July 15, 2007 (the effective date of our Mandatory Arbitration Agreement).
Following the court’s order, Ms. Monjazeb and Mr. Pinela filed demands for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) seeking to arbitrate
not only their individual claims, but also class claims, which the Company asserted violated the class action waiver in the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement.
This led to further proceedings in the trial court, a stay of the arbitrations, and a decision by the trial court, on its own motion, to reconsider its order
compelling arbitration. The trial court ultimately decided to vacate its order compelling arbitration due to a recent
27