UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

FORM 10-Q

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC

 

INDEX

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC (the "Company") is a luxury omni-channel retailer conducting store and online operations principally under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, Last Call and MyTheresa brand names.  References to “we,” “our” and “us” are used to refer to the Company or collectively to the Company and its subsidiaries, as appropriate to the context.

The Company is a subsidiary of Mariposa Intermediate Holdings LLC ("Holdings"), which in turn is a subsidiary of Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"). Parent is owned by entities affiliated with Ares Management, L.P. and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (together, the "Sponsors") and certain co-investors. The Sponsors acquired the Company on October 25, 2013 (the "Acquisition").

 

The Company's operations are conducted through its direct wholly owned subsidiary, The Neiman Marcus Group LLC ("NMG").

In October 2014, we acquired MyTheresa, a luxury retailer headquartered in Munich, Germany. The operations of MyTheresa are conducted primarily through the mytheresa.com website.

The accompanying Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements set forth financial information of the Company and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.  All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.

 

We have prepared the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") for interim financial information and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  Accordingly, these financial statements do not include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements.  Therefore, these financial statements should be read in conjunction with our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 30, 2016.  In our opinion, the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements contain all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments, necessary to present fairly our financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the applicable interim periods.

 

The luxury retail industry is seasonal in nature, with higher sales typically generated in the fall and holiday selling seasons.  Due to seasonal and other factors, the results of operations for the secondthird quarter of fiscal year 2017 are not necessarily comparable to, or indicative of, results of any other interim period or for the fiscal year as a whole.

Certain prior period balances have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation due primarily to our adoption of recent accounting pronouncements related to the presentation of debt issuance costs and deferred income taxes.

 

A detailed description of our critical accounting policies is included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 30, 2016.

 

While we believe that our past estimates and assumptions have been materially accurate, the amounts currently estimated are subject to change if different assumptions as to the outcome of future events were made.  We evaluate our estimates and assumptions on an ongoing basis and predicate those estimates and assumptions on historical experience and on various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances.  We make adjustments to our estimates and assumptions when facts and circumstances dictate.  Since future events and their effects cannot be determined with absolute certainty, actual results may differ from the estimates and assumptions used in preparing the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

We believe the following critical accounting policies, among others, encompass the more significant estimates, assumptions and judgments used in the preparation of the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements:

 

In October 2014, we acquired MyTheresa, a luxury retailer headquartered in Munich, Germany. The operations of MyTheresa are conducted primarily through the mytheresa.com website. The purchase price paid to acquire MyTheresa, net of cash acquired, was $181.7 million, which was financed through a combination of cash and debt. In addition, the MyTheresa purchase agreement containscontained contingent earn-out payments to the sellers aggregating up to €55.0 million based on operating performance for calendar years 2015 and 2016. In March 2017, we paid $26.9 million, or €25.5 million, to the sellers as a result of MyTheresa's operating performance for calendar year 2016. In April 2016, we paid $29.8 million, or €26.5 million, to the sellers as a result of MyTheresa's operating performance for calendar year 2015. The estimated fair valueAs of April 29, 2017, the remaining earn-outCompany has no further obligation related to operating performance for calendar year 2016 was $24.5 million, or €23.2 million, at January 28, 2017, which is included in accrued liabilities.the contingent earn-out payments to the sellers of MyTheresa.

 

Certain of our assets and liabilities are required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis. Fair value is the price that would be received upon sale of an asset or paid upon transfer of a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date and in the principal or most advantageous market for that asset or liability.  Assets and liabilities are classified using a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value as follows:

 

The fair value of the interest rate swaps is estimated using industry standard valuation models using market-based observable inputs, including interest rate curves. 

The fair value of the contingent earn-out obligation incurred in connection with the acquisition of MyTheresa was estimated as of the acquisition date using a valuation model that measured the present value of the probable cash payments based upon the forecasted operating performance of MyTheresa and a discount rate that captured the risk associated with the obligation. We updateupdated our assumptions based on new developments and adjustadjusted the carrying value of the obligation to its estimated fair value at each reporting date. As of April 29, 2017, the Company has no further obligation related to the contingent earn-out payments as both contingent earn-out payments have been paid.  

Because Parent is privately held and there is no public market for its common stock, the fair market value of Parent's common stock is determined by the Board of Directors of Parent (the "Parent Board") or the Compensation Committee, as applicable.  In determining the fair market value of Parent's common stock, the Parent Board or the Compensation Committee, as applicable, considers such factors as any recent transactions involving Parent's common stock, the Company’s actual and projected financial results, the principal amount of the Company’s indebtedness, valuations of the Company performed by third parties and other factors it believes are material to the valuation process. Significant inputs to the common stock valuation model are updated as applicable and the carrying value of the obligation is adjusted to its estimated fair value at each reporting date.

The carrying values of cash and cash equivalents, credit card receivables and accounts payable approximate fair value due to their short-term nature.  We determine the fair value of our long-term debt on a non-recurring basis, which results are summarized as follows:

aggregate principal amount of 7.125% Debentures due 2028 (the "2028 Debentures" and, together with the Cash Pay Notes and the PIK Toggle Notes, the "Notes").

 

In connection with purchase accounting, we adjusted the carrying values of our long-lived and intangible assets to their estimated fair values at the acquisition date. The fair value estimates were based upon assumptions related to the future cash flows, discount rates and asset lives utilizing currently available information, and in some cases, valuation results from independent valuation specialists (Level 3 determination of fair value). Subsequent to the Acquisition, we determine the fair value of our long-lived and intangible assets on a non-recurring basis in connection with our periodic evaluations of such assets for potential impairment and record impairment charges when such fair value estimates are lower than the carrying values of the assets.

 

Total amortization of all intangible assets recorded in connection with acquisitions for the current and next five fiscal years is currently estimated as follows (in thousands):

At January 28,April 29, 2017, accumulated amortization was $177.7$187.5 million for favorable lease commitments and $274.3$286.6 million for other definite-lived intangible assets.

Since fiscal year 2016, we have experienced declines in our operating results and we believe our operating results have been adversely impacted by a number of factors including, among other things:

Based upon our assessment of economic conditions, our expectations of future business conditions and trends and our projected revenues, earnings and cash flows, we determined that impairment charges were required to state certain of our intangible and long-lived assets, primarily related to our Neiman Marcus brand, to their estimated fair value as of the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016.

In the second quarter of fiscal year 2017, we concluded that it was appropriate to assess the recoverability of the carrying values of our indefinite-lived intangible assets and goodwill as well as our store assets as a result of (i) the continuation of adverse economic and business trends, (ii) revisions to our anticipated future operating results and (iii) increases in the weighted average cost of capital used in estimating the fair value of our tradenames and our reporting units under a discounted cash flow model. In the second quarter of fiscal year 2017, we recorded impairment charges of $153.8 million to state certain of our intangible and long-lived assets, primarily related to our Neiman Marcus brand, to their estimated fair value.

Impairment charges recorded were as follows:

We continue to undertake initiatives to help drive revenues and streamline business activities and will continue to closely monitor our financial condition and results of operations. However, there is a risk that we may continue to experience challenging economic conditions and operating pressures, which in turn could increase the risk of additional impairment charges in future periods.

 

The significant components of our long-term debt are as follows:

 

Availability under the Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility is subject to a borrowing base.  The Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility includes borrowing capacity available for letters of credit (up to $150.0 million, with any such issuance of letters of credit reducing the amount available under the Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility on a dollar-for-dollar basis) and for borrowings on same-day notice.  The borrowing base is equal to at any time the sum of (a) 90% of the net orderly liquidation value of eligible inventory, net of certain reserves, plus (b) 90% of the amounts owed by credit card processors in respect of eligible credit card accounts constituting proceeds from the sale or disposition of inventory, less certain reserves, plus (c) 100% of segregated cash held in a restricted deposit account.  To the extent that excess availability is not equal to or greater than the greater of (a) 10% of the lesser of (1) the aggregate revolving commitments and (2) the borrowing base and (b) $50.0 million, we will be required to maintain a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio.

The Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility permits us to increase commitments under the Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility or add one or more incremental term loans to the Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility by an amount not to exceed $200.0 million. However, the lenders are under no obligation to provide any such additional commitments or loans, and any increase in commitments or incremental term loans will be subject to customary conditions precedent.  If we were to request any such additional commitments and the existing lenders or new lenders were to agree to provide such commitments, the size of the Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility could be increased to $1,100.0 million, but our ability to borrow would still be limited by the amount of the borrowing base.  The cash proceeds of any incremental term loans may be used for working capital and general corporate purposes.

At January 28,April 29, 2017, borrowings under the Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility bore interest at a rate per annum equal to, at our option, either (a) a base rate determined by reference to the highest of (1) the prime rate of Deutsche Bank AG New York Branch (the administrative agent), (2) the federal funds effective rate plus ½ of 1.00% and (3) the adjusted one-month LIBOR plus 1.00% or (b) LIBOR, subject to certain adjustments, in each case plus an applicable margin of 0.75% with respect to base rate borrowings and 1.75% with respect to LIBOR borrowings at January 28,April 29, 2017.  The applicable margin is based on the average historical excess availability under the Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility, and is up to 1.00% with respect to base rate borrowings and up to 2.00% with respect to LIBOR borrowings, in each case with 0.25% step downs based on achievement and maintenance of a certain senior secured first lien net leverage ratio (as defined in the credit agreement governing the Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility).  The weighted average interest rate on the outstanding borrowings pursuant to the Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility was 2.69%2.74% at January 28,April 29, 2017.  In addition, we are required to pay a commitment fee in respect of unused commitments at a rate of up to 0.375% per annum.  We must also pay customary letter of credit fees and agency fees.

If at any time the aggregate amount of outstanding revolving loans, unreimbursed letter of credit drawings and undrawn letters of credit under the Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility exceeds the lesser of (a) the aggregate revolving commitments and (b) the borrowing base, we will be required to repay outstanding loans or cash collateralize letters of credit in an aggregate amount equal to such excess, with no reduction of the commitment amount.  If the excess availability under the Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility is less than the greater of (a) 10% of the lesser of (1) the aggregate revolving commitments and (2) the borrowing base and (b) $50.0 million for a period of five or more consecutive business days, funds held in a collection account maintained with the agent would be applied to repay the loans and other obligations and cash collateralize letters of credit.  We would then be required to make daily deposits in the collection account maintained with the agent under the Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility.

We may voluntarily reduce the unutilized portion of the commitment amount and repay outstanding loans at any time without premium or penalty other than customary breakage costs with respect to LIBOR loans.  There is no scheduled amortization under the Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility. The principal amount of the revolving loans outstanding thereunder will be due and payable in full on July 25, 2021 (or July 25, 2020 if our obligations under our Senior Secured Term Loan Facility or any permitted refinancing thereof have not been repaid or the maturity date thereof has not been extended to October 25, 2021 or later).

 

The Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility is guaranteed by Holdings and each of our current and future direct and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries (subsidiary guarantors) other than (a) unrestricted subsidiaries, (b) certain immaterial subsidiaries, (c) foreign subsidiaries and any domestic subsidiary of a foreign subsidiary, (d) certain holding companies of foreign subsidiaries, (e) captive insurance subsidiaries, not for profit subsidiaries, or a subsidiary which is a special purpose entity for securitization transactions or like special purposes and (f) any subsidiary that is prohibited by applicable law or contractual obligation from acting as a guarantor or which would require governmental approval to provide a guarantee. At April 29, 2017, the assets of non-guarantor subsidiaries, primarily (i) NMG Germany GmbH, through which we conduct the operations of MyTheresa, (ii) NMG International LLC, a holding company with respect to our foreign operations and (iii) Nancy Holdings LLC, which holds legal title to certain real

or which would require governmental approval to provide a guarantee. At January 28, 2017, the assets of non-guarantor subsidiaries, primarily NMG Germany GmbH (through which we conduct theproperty used by us in conducting our operations, of MyTheresa), were $281.1aggregated $378.2 million, or 3.4%4.6% of consolidated total assets. All obligations under the Asset-Based Revolving Credit Facility, and the guarantees of those obligations, are secured, subject to certain significant exceptions, by substantially all of the assets of Holdings, the Company and the subsidiary guarantors.

 

 

The Senior Secured Term Loan Facility permits us to increase the term loans or add a separate tranche of term loans by an amount not to exceed $650.0 million plus an unlimited amount that would result (a) in the case of any incremental term loan facility to be secured equally and ratably with the term loans, a senior secured first lien net leverage ratio equal to or less than 4.25 to 1.00, and (b) in the case of any incremental term loan facility to be secured on a junior basis to the term loans, to be subordinated in right of payment to the term loans or unsecured and pari passu in right of payment with the term loans, a total net leverage ratio equal to or less than the total net leverage ratio as of October 25, 2013.

At January 28,April 29, 2017, borrowings under the Senior Secured Term Loan Facility bore interest at a rate per annum equal to, at our option, either (a) a base rate determined by reference to the highest of (1) the prime rate of Credit Suisse AG (the administrative agent), (2) the federal funds effective rate plus ½ of 1.00% and (3) the adjusted one-month LIBOR plus 1.00%, or (b) an adjusted LIBOR (for a period equal to the relevant interest period, and in any event, never less than 1.00%), subject to certain adjustments, in each case plus an applicable margin.  The applicable margin is up to 2.25% with respect to base rate borrowings and up to 3.25% with respect to LIBOR borrowings.  The applicable margin is subject to adjustment based on our senior secured first lien net leverage ratio.  The applicable margin with respect to outstanding LIBOR borrowings was 3.25% at January 28,April 29, 2017.  The interest rate on the outstanding borrowings pursuant to the Senior Secured Term Loan Facility was 4.25% at January 28,April 29, 2017.

 

Subject to certain exceptions and reinvestment rights, the Senior Secured Term Loan Facility requires that 100% of the net cash proceeds from certain asset sales and debt issuances and 50% (which percentage will be reduced to 25% if our senior secured first lien net leverage ratio, as defined in the credit agreement governing the Senior Secured Term Loan Facility, is equal to or less than 4.0 to 1.0 but greater than 3.5 to 1.0 and will be reduced to 0% if our senior secured first lien net leverage ratio is equal to or less than 3.5 to 1.0) from excess cash flow, as defined in the credit agreement governing the Senior Secured Term Loan Facility, for each of our fiscal years (commencing with the period ended July 26, 2015) must be used to prepay outstanding term loans under the Senior Secured Term Loan Facility at 100% of the principal amount to be prepaid, plus accrued and unpaid interest. We were not required to prepay any outstanding term loans pursuant to the annual excess cash flow requirements for fiscal year 2016.

 

We may repay all or any portion of the Senior Secured Term Loan Facility at any time, subject to redeployment costs in the case of prepayment of LIBOR borrowings other than the last day of the relevant interest period. The Senior Secured Term Loan Facility amortizes in equal quarterly installments of $7.4 million, less certain voluntary and mandatory prepayments, with the remaining balance due at final maturity.

 

The Senior Secured Term Loan Facility is guaranteed by Holdings and each of our current and future subsidiary guarantors other than (a) unrestricted subsidiaries, (b) certain immaterial subsidiaries, (c) foreign subsidiaries and any domestic subsidiary of a

subsidiary that is prohibited by applicable law or contractual obligation from acting as a guarantor or which would require governmental approval to provide a guarantee. At January 28,April 29, 2017, the assets of non-guarantor subsidiaries, primarily (i) NMG Germany GmbH, (throughthrough which we conduct the operations of MyTheresa), were $281.1MyTheresa, (ii) NMG International LLC, a holding company with respect to our foreign operations and (iii) Nancy Holdings LLC, which holds legal title to certain real property used by us in conducting our operations, aggregated $378.2 million, or 3.4%4.6% of consolidated total assets. All obligations under the Senior Secured Term Loan Facility, and the guarantees of those obligations, are secured, subject to certain exceptions, by substantially all of the assets of Holdings, the Company and the subsidiary guarantors.

 

For a more detailed description of the Cash Pay Notes, refer to Note 9 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 30, 2016.

Interest on the PIK Toggle Notes is payable semi-annually in arrears on each April 15 and October 15.  Interest on the PIK Toggle Notes, was paid entirely in cash for the first six interest payments and future interest payments, subject to certain restrictions, may be paid (i) entirely in cash ("Cash Interest"), (ii) entirely by increasing the principal amount of the PIK Toggle Notes by the relevant interest payment amount ("PIK Interest"), or (iii) 50% in Cash Interest and 50% in PIK Interest. Cash Interest on the PIK Toggle Notes accrues at a rate of 8.75% per annum.  PIK Interest on the PIK Toggle Notes accrues at a rate of 9.50% per annum. Interest on the PIK Toggle Notes was paid entirely in cash for the first seven interest payments. We elected to pay the October 2017 interest payment in the form of PIK Interest. We may elect to pay interest in the form of PIK Interest or partial PIK Interest on each of our semi-annual interest payments due in October 2017, April 2018 and October 2018. If we elect PIK Interest or partial PIK Interest with respect to these interest payments, we must deliver a notice of such election to the trustee no later than one day prior to the beginning of the relevant semi-annual interest period. Cash Interest onWe will evaluate our financial position prior to each future interest period to determine the PIK Toggle Notes accruesappropriate election at a rate of 8.75% per annum.  PIK Interest on the PIK Toggle Notes accrues at a rate of 9.50% per annum.that time.

For a more detailed description of the PIK Toggle Notes, refer to Note 9 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 30, 2016.

For a more detailed description of the 2028 Debentures, refer to Note 9 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 30, 2016.

The previous table does not reflect future excess cash flow prepayments, if any, that may be required under the Senior Secured Term Loan Facility.

 

 

We designated the interest rate swaps as cash flow hedges. As cash flow hedges, unrealized gains on our outstanding interest rate swaps are recognized as assets while unrealized losses are recognized as liabilities. Our interest rate swap agreements are highly, but not perfectly, correlated to the changes in interest rates to which we are exposed. As a result, unrealized gains and losses on our interest rate swap agreements are designated as effective or ineffective. The effective portion of such gains or losses will be recorded as a component of accumulated other comprehensive loss while the ineffective portion of such gains or losses will be recorded as a component of interest expense.

2014 through December 2016 with respect to the $1,400.0 million notional amount of such agreements. The interest rate cap agreements expired in December 2016.

Gains and losses realized due to the expiration of applicable portions of the interest rate caps were reclassified to interest expense at the time our quarterly interest payments were made. Losses of $0.8 millionNo losses were realized in the secondthird quarter of fiscal year 2017, $0.1$0.2 million in the secondthird quarter of fiscal year 2016, $1.4 million in year-to-date fiscal 2017 and $0.1$0.2 million in year-to-date fiscal 2016.

 

Our effective income tax rates are as follows:

Our effective income tax rate on the loss for year-to-date fiscal 2017 exceeded the federal statutory tax rate of 35% due primarily to to:

 

At January 28,April 29, 2017, the gross amount of unrecognized tax benefits was $0.8$1.0 million ($0.50.7 million of which would impact our effective tax rate, if recognized).  We classify interest and penalties as a component of income tax expense (benefit) and our liability for accrued interest and penalties was $0.1$0.3 million at January 28,April 29, 2017, $0.4 million at July 30, 2016 and $4.0$4.1 million at JanuaryApril 30, 2016.

We file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction and various state, local and foreign jurisdictions.  The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") finalized its audits of our fiscal year 2012 and short-year 2013 (prior to the Acquisition) federal income tax returns. With respect to state, local and foreign jurisdictions, with limited exceptions, we are no longer subject to income tax audits for fiscal years before 2012.  We believe our recorded tax liabilities as of January 28,April 29, 2017 are sufficient to cover any potential assessments made by the IRS or other taxing authorities and we will continue to review our recorded tax liabilities for potential audit assessments based upon subsequent events, new information and future circumstances.  We believe it is reasonably possible that adjustments to the amounts of our unrecognized tax benefits could occur within the next 12 months as a result of settlements with tax authorities or expiration of statutes of limitations.  At this time, we do not believe such adjustments will have a material impact on our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

Subsequent to the Acquisition, Parent and its subsidiaries, including the Company, file U.S. federal income taxes as a consolidated group.  The Company has elected to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes and all operations of Parent are conducted through Holdings and its subsidiaries, including the Company. Income taxes incurred by Parent are reflected by the Company and its subsidiaries in the preparation of our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. There are no differences in current and deferred income taxes between the Company and Parent.

 

 

Cost of Benefits. The components of the expenses we incurred under our Pension Plan, SERP Plan and Postretirement Plan are as follows:

 

granting the motion and issuing a stay, which currently remains in effect. The appeal with respect to Ms. Monjazeb was dismissed since final approval of the class action settlement (as described below) had been granted.

With respect to Ms. Tanguilig's case, the trial court decided to set certain of her civil penalty claims for trial on April 1, 2014. In these claims, Ms. Tanguilig sought civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act based on the Company's alleged failure to provide employees with meal periods and rest breaks in compliance with California law. On December 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all of Ms. Tanguilig’s claims, including the civil penalty claims, based on her failure to bring her claims to trial within five years as required by California law. After several hearings, on February 28, 2014, the court dismissed all of Ms. Tanguilig’s claims in the case and vacated the April 1, 2014 trial date. The court awarded the Company its costs of suit in connection with the defense of Ms. Tanguilig’s claims, but denied its request of an attorneys’ fees award from Ms. Tanguilig. Ms. Tanguilig filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal of all her claims, as well as a second notice of appeal from the award of costs, both of which are pending before the California Court of Appeal. Should the California Court of Appeal reverse the trial court’s dismissal of all of Ms. Tanguilig’s claims, the litigation will resume, and Ms. Tanguilig will seek class certification of the claims asserted in her Third Amended Complaint. If this occurs, the scope of her class claims will likely be reduced by the class action settlement and release in the Monjazeb case (as described below); however, that settlement does not cover claims asserted by Ms. Tanguilig for alleged Labor Code violations from approximately December 19, 2003 to August 20, 2006 (the beginning of the settlement class period in the Monjazeb case). Briefing on the appeals is complete, and a judicial panel has been assigned. The parties have requested oral argument, but no date has been set.

In Ms. Monjazeb's class action, a settlement was reached at a mediation held on January 25, 2014, and the court granted final approval of the settlement after the final approval hearing held on September 18, 2014. Notwithstanding the settlement of the Monjazeb class action, Ms. Tanguilig filed a motion on January 26, 2015 seeking to recover catalyst attorneys' fees from the Company. A hearing was held on February 24, 2015, and the court issued an order on February 25, 2015 allowing Ms. Tanguilig to proceed with her motion to recover catalyst attorneys' fees related to the Monjazeb settlement. On April 8, 2015, Ms. Tanguilig filed her motion for catalyst attorneys' fees. A hearing on the motion was held on July 23, 2015 and the motion was denied by the court on July 28, 2015.

Based upon the settlement agreement with respect to Ms. Monjazeb's class action claims, we recorded our currently estimable liabilities with respect to both Ms. Monjazeb's and Ms. Tanguilig's employment class actions litigation claims in fiscal year 2014, which amount was not material to our financial condition or results of operations. With respect to the Monjazeb matter, the settlement funds have been paid by the Company and have been disbursed by the claims administrator in accordance with the settlement. We will continue to evaluate the Tanguilig matter, and our recorded reserve for such matter, based on subsequent events, new information and future circumstances.

In addition to the foregoing matters, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") has been pursuing a complaint alleging that the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement’s class action prohibition violates employees’ rights to engage in concerted activity, which was submitted to an administrative law judge ("ALJ") for determination on a stipulated record. The ALJ issued a recommended decision and order finding that the Company's Arbitration Agreement and class action waiver violated the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). The matter was transferred to the NLRB for further consideration and decision. On August 4, 2015, the NLRB affirmed

On August 7, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed against The Neiman Marcus Group LLC in Los Angeles County Superior Court by a customer, Linda Rubenstein, in connection with the Company's Last Call stores in California. Ms. Rubenstein alleges that the Company has violated various California consumer protection statutes by implementing a marketing and pricing strategy that suggests that clothing sold at Last Call stores in California was originally offered for sale at full-line Neiman Marcus stores when allegedly, it was not, and is allegedly of inferior quality to clothing sold at the full-line stores. Ms. Rubenstein also alleges that the Company lacks adequate information to support its comparative pricing labels. On September 12, 2014, we removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On October 17, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the court granted on December 12, 2014. In its order dismissing the complaint, the court granted Ms. Rubenstein leave to file an amended complaint. Ms. Rubenstein filed her first amended complaint on December 22, 2014. On

January 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, which the court granted on March 2, 2015. In its order dismissing the first amended complaint, the court granted Ms. Rubenstein leave to file a second amended complaint, which she filed on March 17, 2015. On April 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On May 12, 2015, the court granted our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety, without leave to amend, and on June 9, 2015, Ms. Rubenstein filed a notice to appeal the court's ruling. The appeal is pending, briefing is complete,was fully briefed and oral argument is set forwas held on February 17, 2017. On April 18, 2017, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's ruling, holding that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to proceed past the pleadings stage of litigation. The case has been transferred back to the district court and given a trial date of July 24, 2018.

In addition, we are currently involved in various other legal actions and proceedings that arose in the ordinary course of business. With respect to the matters described above as well as all other current outstanding litigation involving us, weWe believe that any liability arising as a result of such litigationordinary course matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position,condition, results of operations or cash flows.

injunctive relief. Melissa Frank v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on January 13, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 15, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint. Donna Clark v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on January 27, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on March 11, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint. Christina Wong v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on January 29, 2014, but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on February 10, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint. Three additional putative class actions relating to the Cyber-Attack were filed in March and April 2014, also alleging negligence and other claims in connection with plaintiffs’ purchases by payment cards. Two of the cases, Katerina Chau v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on March 14, 2014, and Michael Shields v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 1, 2014, were voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice as to Chau and without prejudice as to Shields. The third case, Hilary Remijas v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, was filed on March 12, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On June 2, 2014, an amended complaint in the Remijas case was filed, which added three plaintiffs (Debbie Farnoush and Joanne Kao, California residents; and Melissa Frank, a New York resident) and asserted claims for negligence, implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of various consumer protection statutes, invasion of privacy and violation of state data breach laws. The Company moved to dismiss the Remijas amended complaint on July 2, 2014. On September 16, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Remijas case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing due to their failure to demonstrate an actionable injury. On September 25, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the district court's order dismissing the case to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on January 23, 2015. On July 20, 2015, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's ruling and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On August 3, 2015, we filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On September 17, 2015, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied our petition for rehearing. The district court held a status conference on October 29, 2015 and set a supplemental briefing schedule on the remaining portion of our previously filed motion to dismiss that had not been addressed by the court, and scheduled a status hearing for December 15, 2015. The parties completed supplemental briefing on December 21, 2015. On January 13, 2016, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. The parties jointly requested, and the Courtcourt granted, an extension of time for filing a responsive pleading, which was due on December 28, 2016. On February 9, 2017, the Courtcourt denied the parties' request for another extension of time, dismissed the case without prejudice, and stated that plaintiffs could file a motion to reinstate. On March 8, 2017, plaintiffs filed theira motion to reinstate, andwhich the hearing is setcourt granted on March 16, 2017. On March 17, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of a class action settlement resolving this action. The court has not yet ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for March 15, 2017.preliminary approval.

In addition to class actions litigation, payment card companies and associations may require us to reimburse them for unauthorized card charges and costs to replace cards and may also impose fines or penalties in connection with the security incident, and enforcement authorities may also impose fines or other remedies against us. We have also incurred other costs associated with this security incident, including legal fees, investigative fees, costs of communications with customers and credit monitoring services provided to our customers. At this point, we are unable to predict the developments in, outcome of, and economic and other consequences of pending or future litigation or regulatory investigations related to, and other costs associated with, this matter. We will continue to evaluate these matters based on subsequent events, new information and future circumstances.

 

 

The following table summarizes the changes in accumulated other comprehensive loss by component (amounts are recorded net of related income taxes):

 

The amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive loss are recorded within interest expense on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

 

 

The number of Co-Invest Options issued upon conversion of pre-Acquisition stock options was equal to the product of (a) the number of shares subject to the applicable pre-Acquisition stock options multiplied by (b) the ratio of the per share merger consideration over the fair market value of a share of Parent, which was approximately 3.1x (the "Exchange Ratio").  The exercise price of each pre-Acquisition stock option was adjusted by dividing the original exercise price of the pre-Acquisition stock option by the Exchange Ratio.  Following the conversion, the exercise prices of the Co-Invest Options range from $180 to $644 per share.  As of the date of the Acquisition, the aggregate intrinsic value of the Co-Invest Options equaled the aggregate intrinsic value of the rolled over pre-Acquisition stock options. The Co-Invest Options are fully vested and are exercisable at any time prior to the applicable expiration dates related to the original grant of the pre-Acquisition options.  The Co-Invest Options contain sale and repurchase provisions.

cause, the repurchase price is the lesser of the exercise price of such options or the fair value of such awards at the employee termination date. For certain optionees, in the event of the retirement of the optionee, the repurchase price is the fair value at the retirement date. Parent's repurchase rights expire upon completion of an IPO, including with respect to the Co-Invest Options.

We currently account for stock options issued to certain optionees who will become retirement eligible prior to the expiration of their stock options ("Retirement Eligible Optionees") as variable awards using the liability method, as these optionees could receive a cash settlement of their awards at the time of retirement should Parent exercise its repurchase rights with respect to such shares. Under the liability method, we recognize the estimated liability for option awards held by Retirement Eligible Optionees over the vesting periods of such awards. In periods in which the estimated fair value of our equity increases, we increase our stock compensation liability. Conversely, in periods in which the estimated fair value of our equity decreases, we reduce our stock compensation liability. These increases/decreases are recorded as stock compensation expense and are included in selling, general and administrative expenses. With respect to time-vested options held by non-Retirement Eligible Optionees, such options are effectively forfeited should the optionee voluntarily leave the Company without good reason or be terminated for cause prior to an IPO. As a result, we currently record no expense or liability with respect to such options. With respect to performance-vested options, such options are effectively forfeited should the optionee voluntarily leave the Company without good reason or be terminated for cause prior to achievement of the performance condition. As a result, we currently record no expense or liability with respect to such options.

At January 28,April 29, 2017, an aggregate of 45,21041,714 Co-Invest Options and time-vested options were held by Retirement Eligible Optionees. The recorded liability with respect to such options was $2.5$1.5 million at January 28,April 29, 2017, $5.5 million at July 30, 2016 and $19.8 million at JanuaryApril 30, 2016.

The following table sets forth certain summary information with respect to our stock options for the periods indicated:

In September 2016, the Compensation Committee determined that the exercise prices of certain time-vested and performance-vested stock options were higher than the current fair market value of Parent's common stock. In order to enhance the retentive value of these options, the Compensation Committee approved (1) a repricing of 18,225 time-vested and performance-vested stock options to an exercise price of $1,000 per share and (2) modifications to the performance metrics applicable to all performance-vested stock options.

If our Chief Executive Officer's employment is terminated by Parent without cause, by her for good reason (as defined in her employment agreement) or by reason of the non-renewal of her employment agreement, (i) prior to a change in control of Parent, all unvested shares of restricted stock that would have vested in the 12-month period following the date of such termination of employment will accelerate and vest, and (ii) following a change in control but before an IPO, all unvested shares of restricted stock

will accelerate and vest. Upon such termination, our Chief Executive Officer will have the ability to exercise the put right with respect to vested shares in the first put period following termination of employment.

At January 28,April 29, 2017, 24,350 shares of unvested restricted common stock were outstanding. The recorded liability with respect to such shares was $0.8$1.7 million at January 28,April 29, 2017.