Note 1 – Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared by 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. They do not include all of the information and notes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the three month period ended September 27, 2015 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the fiscal year ending July 3, 2016. For further information, refer to the consolidated financial statements and footnotes thereto included in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 28, 2015.

The Company’s quarterly results may experience seasonal fluctuations. Due to the seasonal nature of the Company’s business, and its continued expansion into non-floral products, including the acquisition of Harry & David Holdings, Inc. (“Harry & David”) on September 30, 2014, the Thanksgiving through Christmas holiday season, which falls within the Company’s second fiscal quarter, is expected to generate nearly 50% of the Company’s annual revenues, and all of its earnings. Additionally, due to the number of major floral gifting occasions, including Mother's Day, Valentine’s Day and Administrative Professionals Week, revenues also rise during the Company’s fiscal third and fourth quarters in comparison to its fiscal first quarter. The Easter Holiday, which was on April 5^th in fiscal 2015, falls on March 27^th in fiscal 2016. As a result of the timing of Easter, during fiscal 2016, all revenue and EBITDA associated with the Easter Holiday will shift into the Company’s fiscal third quarter.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-05, “Customer's Accounting for Fees Paid in a Cloud Computing Arrangement.” This standard provides guidance to help entities determine whether a cloud computing arrangement contains a software license that should be accounted for as internal-use software or as a service contract. Upon adoption, an entity has the option to apply the provisions of ASU 2015-05 either prospectively to all arrangements entered into or materially modified, or retrospectively. This standard is effective for the Company’s fiscal year ending July 2, 2017. We are currently evaluating the potential impact of adopting this guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-03, “Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs,” which amends ASC 835-30, “Interest – Imputation of Interest.” In order to simplify the presentation of debt issuance costs, ASU No. 2015-03 requires that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from that debt liability, consistent with the presentation of a debt discount. This presentation is consistent with the guidance in Concepts Statement 6, which states that debt issuance costs are similar to a debt discount and in effect reduce the proceeds of borrowing, thereby increasing the effective interest rate. Concepts Statement 6 further states that debt issuance costs are not assets because they provide no future economic benefit. This new guidance is effective for the Company’s fiscal year ending July 2, 2017 and should be applied retrospectively.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers.” This amended guidance will enhance the comparability of revenue recognition practices and will be applied to all contracts with customers. Expanded disclosures related to the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue that is recognized are requirements under the amended guidance. This guidance will be effective for the Company’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2019 and may be applied retrospectively. We are currently evaluating the potential impact of adopting this guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

Reclassifications

Certain balances in the prior fiscal years have been reclassified to conform to the presentation in the current fiscal year.

Note 2 – Net Loss Per Common Share

Basic net loss per common share attributable to 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. is computed using the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted net loss per common share attributable to 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. is computed using the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period, and excludes the dilutive potential common shares (consisting of employee stock options and unvested restricted stock awards), as their inclusion would be antidilutive. As a result of the net loss attributable to 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. for the three months ended September 27, 2015 and September 28, 2014, there is no dilutive impact to the net loss per share calculation for the respective periods.

Note 3 – Stock-Based Compensation

The Company has a Long Term Incentive and Share Award Plan, which is more fully described in Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 28, 2015, that provides for the grant to eligible employees, consultants and directors of stock options, restricted shares, and other stock-based awards.

The amounts of stock-based compensation expense recognized in the periods presented are as follows:

Stock-based compensation is recorded within the following line items of operating expenses:

The following table summarizes stock option activity during the three months ended September 27, 2015:

As of September 27, 2015, the total future compensation cost related to non-vested options, not yet recognized in the statement of income, was $1.5 million and the weighted average period over which these awards are expected to be recognized was 3.6 years.

The Company grants shares of Common Stock to its employees that are subject to restrictions on transfer and risk of forfeiture until fulfillment of applicable service conditions and, in certain cases, holding periods (Restricted Stock). The following table summarizes the activity of non-vested restricted stock awards during the three months ended September 27, 2015:

The fair value of non-vested shares is determined based on the closing stock price on the grant date. As of September 27, 2015, there was $6.6 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested restricted stock-based compensation to be recognized over the weighted-average remaining period of 2.3 years.

Note 4 – Acquisitions and Dispositions

Acquisition of Harry & David

On September 30, 2014, the Company completed its acquisition of Harry & David, a leading multi-channel specialty retailer and producer of branded premium gift-quality fruit, gourmet food products and other gifts marketed under the Harry & David brands. The transaction, for a purchase price of $142.5 million, includes the Harry & David’s brands and websites as well as its headquarters, manufacturing and distribution facilities and orchards in Medford, Oregon, a warehouse and distribution facility in Hebron, Ohio and 48 Harry & David retail stores located throughout the country.

During the quarter ended June 28, 2015, the Company finalized the allocation of the purchase price to the identifiable assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on its estimates of their fair values on the acquisition date. The determination of the fair values of the acquired assets and assumed liabilities (and the related determination of estimated lives of depreciable tangible and identifiable intangible assets) requires significant judgment. The estimates and assumptions include the projected timing and amount of future cash flows and discount rates reflecting risk inherent in the future cash flows. Of the acquired intangible assets, $5.2 million was assigned to customer lists, which are being amortized over the estimated remaining lives of between 4 to 11 years, $35.5 million was assigned to trademarks, $1.1 million was assigned to leasehold positions and $16.0 million was assigned to goodwill, which is not expected to be deductible for tax purposes. The goodwill recognized in conjunction with our acquisition of Harry & David is primarily related to synergistic value created in terms of both operating costs and revenue growth opportunities, enhanced financial and operational scale, and other strategic benefits. It also includes certain other intangible assets that do not qualify for separate recognition, such as an assembled workforce.

The following table summarizes the final allocation of the purchase price to the estimated fair values of assets acquired and liabilities assumed at the date of the acquisition:

The estimated fair value of the acquired work in process and finished goods inventory was determined utilizing the income approach. The income approach estimates the fair value of the inventory based on the net retail value of the inventory less operating expenses and a reasonable profit allowance. Raw materials inventory was valued at book value, as there have not been any significant price fluctuations or other events that would materially change the cost to replace the raw materials.

The estimated fair value of the deferred revenue was determined based on the costs to perform the remaining services and/or satisfy the Company’s remaining obligations, plus a reasonable profit for those activities. These remaining costs exclude sales and marketing expenses since the Deferred Revenue has already been “sold,” and no additional sales and marketing expenses will be incurred. The reasonable profit to be earned on the deferred revenue was estimated based on the profit mark-up that the Company earns on similar services.

The estimated fair value of property, plant and equipment was determined utilizing a combination of the cost, sales comparison, market, and excess earnings method approaches, as follows:

Under the cost approach a replacement cost of the asset is first determined based on replacing the real property with assets of equal utility and functionality, developed based on both the indirect and the direct cost methods. The indirect cost method includes multiplying the assets’ historical costs by industry specific inflationary trend factors to yield an estimated replacement cost. In applying this method, all direct and indirect costs including tax, freight, installation, engineering and other associated soft costs were considered. The direct cost method includes obtaining a current replacement cost estimate from the Company and equipment dealers, which includes all applicable direct and indirect costs. An appropriate depreciation allowance is then applied to the replacement cost based on the effective age of the assets relative to the expected normal useful lives of the assets, condition of the assets, and the planned future utilization of the assets. The determination of fair value also includes considerations of functional obsolescence and economic obsolescence, where applicable.

The sales comparison approach was considered for certain real estate property. Under the sales comparison approach, an estimate of fair value is determined by comparing the property being valued to similar properties that have been sold within a reasonable period from the valuation date, applying appropriate units of comparison.

The market approach was considered for certain assets with active secondary markets including agricultural equipment, automobiles, computer equipment, general equipment, mobile equipment, packaging machinery and semi-tractors. Under the market approach market, comparables for the assets are obtained from equipment dealers, resellers, industry databases, and published price guides. The market comparables are then adjusted to the subject assets based on age, condition or type of transaction. All applicable direct and indirect costs are also considered and reflected in the final fair value determination.

The fair value of orchards in production was determined based on the excess earnings method under the income approach. This valuation approach assumed that the orchards’ production could be sold independently through a wholesale market rather than Harry & David’s retail channel. The excess earnings method required calculating future crop revenue as determined by multiplying the future crop volume in tons to be produced by the projected price per ton based on the USDA “Agricultural Prices” report released January 31, 2015 by the National Agricultural Statistics Services. Appropriate expenses were deducted from the sales attributable to the orchards and economic rents were charged for the return on contributory assets. The after-tax cash flows attributable to the asset were discounted back to their net present value at an appropriate rate of return and summed to calculate the value of the orchards.

The estimated fair value of the acquired trademarks was determined using the relief from royalty method, which is a risk-adjusted discounted cash flow approach. The relief from royalty method values an intangible asset by estimating the royalties saved through ownership of the asset. The relief from royalty method requires identifying the future revenue that would be generated by the trademark, multiplying it by a royalty rate deemed to be avoided through ownership of the asset and discounting the projected royalty savings amounts back to the acquisition date. The royalty rate used in the valuation was based on a consideration of market rates for similar categories of assets. The discount rate used in the valuation was based on the Company’s weighted average cost of capital, the riskiness of the earnings stream association with the trademarks and the overall composition of the acquired assets.

The estimated fair value of the acquired customer lists was determined using the excess earnings method under the income approach. This method requires identifying the future revenue that would be generated by existing customers at the time of the acquisition, considering an appropriate attrition rate based on the historical experience of the Company. Appropriate expenses are then deducted from the revenues and economic rents are charged for the return on contributory assets. The after-tax cash flows attributable to the asset are discounted back to their net present value at an appropriate intangible asset rate of return and summed to calculate the value of the customer lists.

Acquisition of Fannie May retail stores

On June 27, 2014, the Company and GB Chocolates LLC (GB Chocolates) entered into a settlement agreement, resulting in the termination of the GB Chocolates franchise agreement, and its exclusive area development rights. As a result, in fiscal 2014, the Company recognized the previously deferred non-refundable area development fees of $0.7 million. In addition, per the terms of the non-performance Promissory Note, GB Chocolates paid $1.2 million as a result of its failure to complete its development obligations under the 2011 Area Development Agreement (the 2011 ADA). As a result, during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company recognized revenue of $1.0 million ($0.2 million had been previously recognized). The Company has no plans to market the territories covered in the 2011 ADA.

In conjunction with the settlement agreement, the Company and GB Chocolates entered into an asset purchase agreement whereby the Company repurchased 16 of the original 17 Fannie May retail stores sold to GB Chocolates in November 2011. The acquisition was accounted for using the purchase method of accounting in accordance with FASB guidance regarding business combinations. The purchase price of $6.4 million was financed utilizing available cash balances.

During the quarter ended June 28, 2015, the Company finalized the allocation of the purchase price to the identifiable assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on our estimates of their fair values on the acquisition date. There have been no measurement period adjustments. The following table summarizes the final allocation of the purchase price to the estimated fair values of assets acquired and liabilities assumed at the date of the acquisition:

Operating results of the acquired stores are reflected in the Company’s consolidated financial statements from the date of acquisition, within the Gourmet Food & Gift Baskets segment. Pro forma results of operations have not been presented, as the impact on the Company’s consolidated financial results would not have been material.

Disposition of Colonial Gifts Limited

On December 3, 2013, the Company completed its acquisition of a controlling interest in Colonial Gifts Limited (“iFlorist”). iFlorist, located in the UK, is a direct-to-consumer marketer of floral and gift-related products sold and delivered throughout Europe. The acquisition was achieved in stages and was accounted for using the acquisition method of accounting in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (“FASB”) guidance regarding business combinations.

During the quarter ended September 27, 2015, the Company’s management committed to a plan to sell its iFlorist business in order to focus its internal resources and capital on integrating Harry & David and achieving expected synergy savings. On October 28, 2015, the Company completed the sale of substantially all of the assets of iFlorist to Euroflorist AB (“Euroflorist”), a pan-European floral and gifting company headquartered in Malmo, Sweden. As consideration for the assets sold, the Company received an investment in Euroflorist with a fair value on the date of sale of approximately $1.5 million. The Company will account for this investment using the cost method as it does not possess the ability to exercise significant influence over Euroflorist.

As a result of the above, the Company determined that the iFlorist business (disposal group) met the held for sale criteria, as prescribed by FASB ASC 360-10-45-9, as of September 27, 2015. As a result, the Company compared iFlorist’s carrying amount ($3.4 million) to its fair value less cost to sell ($1.5 million), and recorded an impairment charge of $1.9 million during the period ended September 27, 2015. The Company recorded this impairment charge within “Other (income) expense, net” in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. Subsequent to the impairment charge, the remaining assets of iFlorist included in the September 27, 2015 condensed consolidated balance sheets is as follows:

* Note: the held for sale assets in the condensed consolidated balance sheets were not segregated as their balance was deemed to be immaterial.

Note 5 – Inventory

The Company’s inventory, stated at cost, which is not in excess of market, includes purchased and manufactured finished goods for sale, crops, packaging supplies, raw material ingredients for manufactured products and associated manufacturing labor and is classified as follows:

Note 6 – Goodwill and Intangible Assets

The following table presents goodwill by segment and the related change in the net carrying amount:

The Company’s other intangible assets consist of the following:

Intangible assets are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset or asset group may not be recoverable. Future estimated amortization expense is as follows: remainder of fiscal 2016 - $1.5 million, fiscal 2017 - $1.5 million, fiscal 2018 - $1.3 million, fiscal 2019 - $0.7 million, fiscal 2020 - $0.6 million and thereafter - $3.7 million.

Note 7 – Investments

The Company has certain investments in non-marketable equity instruments of private companies. The Company accounts for these investments using the equity method if they provide the Company the ability to exercise significant influence, but not control, over the investee. Significant influence is generally deemed to exist if the Company has an ownership interest in the voting stock of the investee between 20% and 50%, although other factors, such as representation on the investee’s Board of Directors, are considered in determining whether the equity method is appropriate. The Company records equity method investments initially at cost, and adjusts the carrying amount to reflect the Company’s share of the earnings or losses of the investee.

The Company’s equity method investments are comprised of a 32% interest in Flores Online, a Sao Paulo, Brazil based internet floral and gift retailer, that the Company made on May 31, 2012. The book value of this investment was $1.2 million as of September 27, 2015 and $2.9 million as of June 28, 2015, and is included in Other assets within the condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company’s equity in the net loss of Flores Online for the quarters ended September 27, 2015 and September 28, 2014 was less than $0.1 million. During the quarter ended September 27, 2015, the Company determined that the fair value of its investment in Flores Online ($1.2 million) was below its carrying value ($2.9 million) and that this decline was other-than-temporary. As a result, the Company recorded an impairment charge of $1.7 million, which is included within “Other (income) expense, net” in the condensed consolidated statements of operations.

Investments in non-marketable equity instruments of private companies, where the Company does not possess the ability to exercise significant influence, are accounted for under the cost method. Cost method investments are originally recorded at cost, and are included within Other assets in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets. The aggregate carrying amount of the Company’s cost method investments was $0.7 million as of September 27, 2015 and June 28, 2015. In addition, the Company had notes receivable from a company it maintains an investment in of $0.3 million as of September 27, 2015 and June 28, 2015.

The Company also holds certain trading securities associated with its Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan (“NQDC Plan”). These investments are measured using quoted market prices at the reporting date and are included in Other assets in the condensed consolidated balance sheets (see Note 10).

Each reporting period, the Company uses available qualitative and quantitative information to evaluate its investments for impairment. When a decline in fair value, if any, is determined to be other-than-temporary, an impairment charge is recorded in the consolidated statement of operations. 

Note 8 – Debt

The Company’s current and long-term debt consists of the following:

The 2014 Credit Facility requires that while any borrowings are outstanding the Company comply with certain financial and non-financial covenants, including the maintenance of certain financial ratios. The Company was in compliance with these covenants as of September 27, 2015. Outstanding amounts under the 2014 Credit Facility bear interest at the Company’s option at either: (i) LIBOR, plus a spread of 175 to 250 basis points, as determined by the Company’s leverage ratio, or (ii) ABR, plus a spread of 75 to 150 basis points. The 2014 Credit Agreement is secured by substantially all of the assets of the Company and the Subsidiary Guarantors.

Future principal payments under the term loan are as follows: $10.7 million – 2016, $19.6 million – 2017, $21.4 million – 2018, $26.7 million – 2019 and $49.9 million– 2020.

Note 9 – Property, Plant and Equipment

Cash and cash equivalents, receivables, accounts payable and accrued expenses are reflected in the consolidated balance sheets at carrying value, which approximates fair value due to the short-term nature of these instruments. Although no trading market exists, the Company believes that the carrying amount of its debt approximates fair value due to its variable nature. The Company’s investments in non-marketable equity instruments of private companies are carried at cost and are periodically assessed for other-than-temporary impairment, when an event or circumstances indicate that an other-than-temporary decline in value may have occurred. The Company’s remaining financial assets and liabilities are measured and recorded at fair value (see table below). The Company’s non-financial assets, such as definite lived intangible assets and property, plant and equipment, are recorded at cost and are assessed for impairment when an event or circumstance indicates that an other-than-temporary decline in value may have occurred. Goodwill and indefinite lived intangibles are tested for impairment annually, or more frequently if events occur or circumstances change such that it is more likely than not that an impairment may exist, as required under the accounting standards.

Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability, in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability, in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The authoritative guidance for fair value measurements establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (level 3 measurements). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy under the guidance are described below:

The following table presents by level, within the fair value hierarchy, financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis:

At the end of each interim reporting period, the Company estimates its effective income tax rate expected to be applicable for the full year. This estimate is used in providing for income taxes on a year-to-date basis and may change in subsequent interim periods. The Company’s effective tax rate from operations for the three months ended September 27, 2015 was 37.0%, compared to 38.0% in the same period of the prior year. The effective rate for fiscal 2016 differed from the U.S. federal statutory rate of 35% primarily due to state income taxes, which were partially offset by various permanent differences and tax credits. The effective rate for fiscal 2015 differed from the U.S. federal statutory rate of 35% primarily due to state income taxes, and other permanent differences, offset by tax credits.

The Company files income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction, various state jurisdictions, and various foreign countries. The Company concluded its federal examination for fiscal 2011, however, fiscal years 2012 thru 2014 remain subject to federal examination. Due to ongoing state examinations and non-conformity with the federal statute of limitations for assessment, certain states remain open from fiscal 2011. The Company commenced operations in foreign jurisdictions in 2012. The Company's foreign income tax filings are open for examination by its respective foreign tax authorities, mainly Canada and the United Kingdom.

The Company’s policy is to recognize interest and penalties accrued on any unrecognized tax benefits as a component of income tax expense. At September 27, 2015 the Company has remaining unrecognized tax positions of approximately $0.6 million, including accrued interest and penalties of $0.1 million. The Company believes that none of its unrecognized tax positions will be resolved over the next twelve months.

The Company’s management reviews the results of the Company’s operations by the following three business segments:

Segment performance is measured based on contribution margin, which includes only the direct controllable revenue and operating expenses of the segments. As such, management’s measure of profitability for these segments does not include the effect of corporate overhead (see (*) below), nor does it include depreciation and amortization, other (income) expense, net and income taxes, or stock-based compensation and certain Harry & David acquisition/integration costs, both of which are included within corporate overhead. Assets and liabilities are reviewed at the consolidated level by management and not accounted for by segment.

* Corporate expenses consist of the Company's enterprise shared service cost centers, and include, among other items, Information Technology, Human Resources, Accounting and Finance, Legal, Executive and Customer Service Center functions, as well as Stock-Based Compensation, and during the quarter ended September 27, 2015 and September 28, 2014 integration and acquisition costs related to the acquisition of Harry & David, in the amount of $0.8 million and $0.7 million respectively. In order to leverage the Company's infrastructure, these functions are operated under a centralized management platform, providing support services throughout the organization. The costs of these functions, other than those of the Customer Service Center, which are allocated directly to the above segments based upon usage, are included within corporate expenses, as they are not directly allocable to a specific segment. The Company has commenced integrating Harry & David into its operating platforms, and as such, their operating costs have been classified in a similar manner. 

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company is subject to legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business:

In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. (Frank v.Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., et al):

On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York naming the Company (along with Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as defendants in an action purporting to assert claims against the Company alleging violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA") among other statutes, and for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-transaction marketing practices in which certain of the Company's subsidiaries previously engaged in with certain third-party vendors. On December 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal seeking to dismiss the entire action without prejudice. The court entered an Order on November 28, 2012, dismissing the case in its entirety. This case was subsequently refiled in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On March 6, 2012 and March 15, 2012, two additional purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as defendants in actions purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the lawsuit filed on November 10, 2010. In each case, plaintiffs seek to have the respective case certified as a class action and seek restitution and other damages, each in an amount in excess of $5.0 million. On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases were consolidated with a third case previously pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in which the Company is not a party (the "Consolidated Action"). A consolidated amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs on September 7, 2012, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those originally asserted. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on December 7, 2012, which was subsequently refiled at the direction of the Court on January 16, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, the same plaintiff from the action voluntarily dismissed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as defendants, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the consolidated amended complaint (the “Frank Action”). On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a motion to transfer and consolidate the action filed on December 5, 2012 with the Consolidated Action. The Company intends to defend each of these actions vigorously.

On January 31, 2013, the court issued an order to show cause directing plaintiffs' counsel in the Frank Action, also counsel for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, to show cause why the Frank Action is distinguishable from the Consolidated Action such that it may be maintained despite the prior-pending action doctrine. On June 13, 2013, the court issued an order in the Frank Action suspending deadlines to answer or to otherwise respond to the complaint until 21 days after the court decides whether the Frank Action should be consolidated with the Consolidated Action. On July 24, 2013 the Frank Action was reassigned to Judge Vanessa Bryant, before whom the Consolidated Action is currently pending, for all further proceedings. On August 14, 2013, other defendants filed a motion for clarification in the Frank Action requesting that Judge Bryant clarify the order suspending deadlines.

On March 28, 2014, the Court issued a series of rulings disposing of all the pending motions in both the Consolidated Action and the Frank Action. Among other things, the Court dismissed several causes of action, leaving pending a claim for CUTPA violations stemming from Trilegiant’s refund mitigation strategy and a claim for unjust enrichment. Thereafter, the Court consolidated the Frank case into the Consolidated Action. On April 28, 2014 plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal the various rulings against them to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and to have a partial final judgment entered dismissing those claims that the Court had ordered dismissed. The Company filed its Answer to the Complaint on May 12, 2014. On March 26, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motions that led to the parties engaging in discovery.

On September 16, 2015, the Plaintiff who sued the Company in this action, David Frank, filed a Stipulation dismissing the Company from this litigation with prejudice. The Company paid no monies to David Frank, or any of his attorneys to resolve this action.

Edible Arrangements:

On November 20, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut by Edible Arrangements LLC and Edible Arrangements International, LLC, alleging that the Company’s use of the terms “Fruit Bouquets,” “Edible,” “Bouquet,” “Edible Fruit Arrangements,” Edible Arrangements,” and “DoFruit” and its use of a six petal pineapple slice design in connection with marketing and selling edible fruit arrangements constitutes trademark infringement, false designation of origin, dilution, and contributory infringement under the federal Lanham Act, 29 USC § 1114 and 1125(a), common law unfair competition, and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Connecticut General Statutes § 42-110b (a). The Complaint alleges Edible Arrangements has been damaged in the amount of $97,411,000. The Complaint requests a declaratory judgment in favor of Edible Arrangements, an injunction against the Company’s use of the terms and design, an accounting and payment of the Company’s profits from its sale of edible fruit arrangements, a trebling of the Company’s profits from such sales or of any damages sustained by Edible Arrangements, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. On November 24, 2014, the Complaint was amended to add a breach of contract claim for use of these terms and the design, based on a contract that had been entered by one of the Company’s remote subsidiaries prior to its acquisition by the Company.

On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiffs amended the Complaint to add one of the Company’s subsidiaries and to claim its damages were $ 101,436,000. The Company filed an Answer and a Counterclaim on February 27, 2015. The Answer asserts substantial defenses, including fair use by the Company of generic and descriptive terms, as expressly permitted under the Lanham Act, invalidity of Edible Arrangements’ trademark registrations on grounds of fraud and trademark misuse, lack of exclusive rights on the part of Edible Arrangements, functionality of the claimed design mark, acquiescence, estoppel, and Edible Arrangements’ use of the claimed trademarks in violation of the antitrust laws.

The Counterclaim seeks a declaratory judgment of lack of infringement and invalidity of claimed marks, cancellation of Edible Arrangements’ registrations due to its fraud and misuse, genericism, and lack of secondary meaning as to any terms deemed descriptive, and damages in an amount to be determined for violation of the antitrust provisions of the federal Sherman Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Discovery has begun and Edible Arrangements filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s Sherman Act and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act claims. The Company filed its brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 10, 2015. The parties are awaiting a decision from the Court. By Order dated May 4, 2015, the court ordered a phasing of the case and bifurcated the antitrust Counterclaim from the infringement claims.

The Company believes its Counterclaims to the Edible Arrangements’ claims are meritorious and that there are substantial defenses to both of the claims above and expects to defend the claims vigorously.

There are no assurances that additional legal actions will not be instituted in connection with the Company’s former post-transaction marketing practices involving third party vendors nor can we predict the outcome of any such legal action. At this time, we are unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss for the aforementioned action for various reasons, including, among others: (i) the damages sought are indeterminate, (ii) the proceeding is in the early stages, and (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of the pending motion. As a result of the foregoing, we have determined that the amount of possible loss or range of loss is not reasonably estimable. However, legal matters are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, some of which may be beyond our control.

On November 27, 2014, a fire occurred at the Company's Maple Heights, Ohio warehouse and distribution facility. While the fire did not cause any injuries, the building was severely damaged, rendering it inoperable for the key calendar 2014 holiday season, and all Fannie May and Harry London confections in the facility were destroyed. As a result, the Company had limited supplies of its Fannie May Fine Chocolates and Harry London Chocolates products available in its retail stores as well as for its ecommerce and wholesale channels during the 2014 holiday season. While the Company implemented contingency plans to increase production for Fannie May Fine Chocolates and Harry London Chocolates products at its production facility in Canton, Ohio and to shift warehousing and distribution operations to alternate Company facilities, product availability was severely limited, impacting revenue and earnings during the fiscal second and third quarters of fiscal 2015.

The following table reflects the costs related to the fire and the insurance recovery and associated gain as of September 27, 2015:

During the three months ended September 27, 2015, the Company and its insurance carrier reached final agreement regarding the Fannie May fire claim. The agreement, in the amount of $55.0 million, provided for: (i) recovery of raw materials and work-in-process at replacement cost, and finished goods at selling price, less costs to complete the sale and normal discounts and other charges, as well as (ii) other incremental fire-related costs. The cost of inventory lost in the fire was approximately $29.6 million, while other fire-related costs amounted to approximately $5.8 million, including incremental contracted lease and cold storage fees which will be incurred until the Company moves back into its leased facility once the landlord completes repairs in December 2015. The resulting gain of $19.6 million is included in “Other (income) expense, net” in the condensed consolidated statements of operations for the period ended September 27, 2015, as all the contingencies surrounding the payment have been resolved. Through September 27, 2015, the Company received $30.0 million, and therefore has an insurance receivable balance of $25.0 million on its condensed consolidated balance sheets as of September 27, 2015. The Company received the $25.0 million balance from its insurance carrier in October 2015.