Petsmart 2010 Annual Report Download - page 77

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 77 of the 2010 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 86

  • 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

July 8, 2008. On October 14, 2008, the U.S. District Court approved the settlement, and the Canadian courts gave
final approval on November 3, 2008.
Two different groups of objectors filed notices of appeal with respect to the U.S. District Court’s approval of
the U.S. settlement, and the Court of Appeals remanded one point of fact to the motions judge for additional
clarification. Once the point remanded by the appeals court is addressed, these cases should be resolved, and we
continue to believe they will not have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements.
There have been no appeals filed in Canada.
In January 2011, we were named as a defendant in Pedroza v. PetSmart, Inc., et al., a lawsuit originally filed in
California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino. The case has been removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, purportedly on behalf of current and former exempt
store management in California, that we improperly classified our store management as exempt pursuant to the
California Labor Code, and as a result failed to: (i) pay or provide to such managers proper wages, overtime
compensation, or rest or meal periods, (ii) maintain and provide accurate wage-related statements and records, and
(iii) reimburse certain business expenses, in each case as is required by the California Labor Code.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, statutory penalties and other relief, including liquidated damages,
attorneys’ fees, costs and injunctive relief. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit, or any
possible monetary exposure associated with the lawsuit. We believe, however, that the lawsuit is without merit and
that the case should not be certified as a class or collective action, and we are vigorously defending these claims.
We are involved in the defense of various other legal proceedings that we do not believe are material to our
consolidated financial statements.
Note 13 — Supplemental Schedule of Cash Flows
Supplemental cash flow information for 2010, 2009 and 2008 was as follows (in thousands):
2010 2009 2008
Interest paid ........................................ $ 59,419 $59,153 $55,937
Income taxes paid, net of refunds ......................... $137,869 $81,511 $92,786
Assets acquired using capital lease obligations ............... $ 42,175 $18,849 $86,083
Accruals and accounts payable for capital expenditures ......... $ 29,114 $25,827 $19,770
Dividends declared but unpaid ........................... $ 14,436 $12,073 $ 3,816
F-27
PetSmart, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements — (Continued)