Petsmart 2007 Annual Report Download - page 73

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 73 of the 2007 Petsmart 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 90

  • 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

Future minimum annual rental commitments have not been reduced by amounts expected to be received from
subtenants. At February 3, 2008, the future annual payments expected to be collected from subtenants are as follows
(in thousands):
2008 ................................................................ $ 4,072
2009 ................................................................ 3,821
2010 ................................................................ 3,656
2011 ................................................................ 3,656
2012 ................................................................ 2,950
Thereafter ............................................................ 7,368
$25,523
Note 11 — Litigation and Settlements
Litigation
In October 2006, two lawsuits were filed against us in California State Court on behalf of putative classes of
current and former California employees. The first suit, Sorenson v. PetSmart, was filed on October 3, 2006. The
plaintiff, a former dog groomer, alleges that she and other non-exempt employees failed to receive their meal and
rest breaks as required by law. The second suit, Enabnit v. PetSmart, was filed on October 12, 2006, and alleges meal
and rest period violations and that employee paychecks were not compliant with the California Labor Code. The
plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, penalties under the California Labor Code, restitution, attorney’s fees, costs
and prejudgment interest. In November 2006, we removed both actions to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California. The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle both of these matters for
an amount that will not be material to our business and has been accrued for. The parties will seek approval of the
settlements from the court later this year.
We are also a party to several lawsuits arising from the pet food recalls announced by several manufacturers
beginning in March 2007. The named plaintiffs have sued the major pet food manufacturers and retailers claiming
that their pets suffered injury and/or death as a result of consuming allegedly contaminated pet food and pet snack
products. The plaintiffs are seeking certification of class actions in the respective jurisdictions as well as unspecified
damages and injunctive relief. The cases in which we are currently a defendant are:
Bruski v. Nutro Products, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed 3/23/07)
Rozman v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, MN (filed 4/9/07)
Blaszkowski v. Mars Inc., et al., USDC, S.D. FL (filed 5/9/07)
Ford v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, S.D. CA (filed 4/23/07)
Wahl, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., USDC, C.D. CA (filed 4/10/07)
Demith v. Nestle, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed 4/23/07)
Thompkins v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, CO (filed 4/11/07)
McBain v. Menu Foods, et al., Judicial Centre of Regina, Canada (filed 7/11/07)
Dayman v. Hills Pet Nutrition Inc., et al. Ontario Superior Court of Justice (filed 8/8/07)
Esau v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (filed 9/5/07)
Ewasew v. MenuFoods, et al., Supreme Court of British Colombia (filed 3/23/07 )
Silva v. Menu foods, et al., Canada Province of Manitoba (filed 3/30/07)
Powell v. Menu Foods, et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice (filed 3/28/07)
By order dated June 28, 2007, the Bruski, Rozman, Ford, Wahl, Demith and Thompkins cases were transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other pet food class actions under the
federal rules for multi-district litigation (In re Pet Food Product Liability Litigation, Civil No. 07-2867). The
F-23
PetSmart, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements — (Continued)