Note 13 - Commitments and Contingencies
|12 Months Ended|
Apr. 01, 2012
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]||
Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies
Total rent expense was $1.7 million and $1.8 million during fiscal years 2012 and 2011, respectively. The Company’s commitment for minimum guaranteed rental payments under its lease agreements as of April 1, 2012 is $3.3 million, consisting of $1.5 million, $1.4 million and $370,000 due in fiscal years 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively.
Total royalty expense was $6.9 million and $7.3 million for fiscal years 2012 and 2011, respectively. The Company’s commitment for minimum guaranteed royalty payments under its license agreements as of April 1, 2012 is $5.0 million, consisting of $2.1 million, $2.9 million and $32,000 due in fiscal years 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively.
BreathableBaby, LLC (“BreathableBaby”) filed a complaint against the Company and CCIP on January 11, 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that CCIP’s mesh crib liner infringes BreathableBaby’s patent rights relating to its air permeable infant bedding technology. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the complaint, and the Company intends to defend itself vigorously against all such claims. The Company and CCIP filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement on May 14, 2012. BreathableBaby’s response was due by June 4, 2012, and the motion is scheduled to be heard by the Court on June 25, 2012.
On or about May 17, 2012, an alleged Maryland purchaser of a CCIP bedding set filed a complaint against the Company and CCIP in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, purportedly on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. The complaint generally alleges that CCIP’s crib bumper products put children at risk of suffocation or crib death and that the Company and CCIP concealed and failed to disclose these purported risks through allegedly false and misleading advertising and product packaging. The complaint does not allege that any child has actually been harmed by these products. The complaint alleges violations of various consumer protection laws in California, Maryland and numerous other states. The purported class is defined in the complaint as “All consumers who, within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased defendants’ crib bumper products or bedding sets that include a crib bumper.” The complaint alleges an alternative class that would be limited to residents of Maryland. The complaint seeks damages for the purported class in an unspecified amount, injunctive relief, “restitution and disgorgement of all monies acquired by the defendants by means of any act or practice” the Court finds to be unlawful, a Court-ordered “corrective advertising campaign”, and an award of plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and costs. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the complaint, and the Company intends to defend itself vigorously against all such claims.
In addition to the foregoing civil complaints, the Company is, from time to time, involved in various legal proceedings relating to claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. Neither the Company nor any of its subsidiaries is a party to any such legal proceeding the outcome of which, individually or in the aggregate, is expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef