Zumiez Inc

The COVID-19 pandemic remains a rapidly evolving situation. The continuation of the outbreak may cause prolonged periods of store closures and modified operating schedules and may result in changes in customer behaviors, including a potential reduction in consumer discretionary spending in our stores. These may lead to increased asset recovery and valuation risks, such as impairment of our stores and other assets and an inability to realize deferred tax assets due to sustaining losses in certain jurisdictions. Uncertainties in the global economy could impact the financial viability of our suppliers, vendors and other business partners, which could interrupt our supply chain, limit our ability to sell to our consumer and require other changes to our operations. These and other factors could adversely impact our net revenues, operating income and earnings per share financial measures.

We assess goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets for impairment annually in the fourth quarter or more frequently if indicators of impairment arise. We perform this analysis at the reporting unit level by determining whether the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. Given the aforementioned circumstances surrounding COVID-19, we determined that a triggering event had, in fact, occurred. Based on our prior year fourth quarter impairment analysis, in which the fair values of all reporting units were in excess of their carrying amounts, we concluded that impairment was not needed. At this time, we do not believe that additional impairment of goodwill for the first fiscal quarter of 2020 is warranted; however, we are currently monitoring the ongoing negative effects of COVID-19 and if our results decline from our current estimates, we may incur future potential impairments.

During the first quarter of fiscal 2020, we received an immaterial amount of COVID-19 related lease concessions and deferrals for certain stores in United States, Europe and Australia, generally correlating with the limited time period our stores were closed during stay-at-home mandates. Consistent with updated guidance from the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) in April 2020, we have elected to treat COVID-19-related rent concessions as variable lease expense and lease deferrals as there is no change in the contract assuming they are short-term in nature. COVID-19 related rent concessions that are expected to extend well beyond the fiscal year or change the other terms in the lease are treated as lease modifications and a full re-valuation of the right of use asset and liability is performed.  We are having ongoing conversations with landlords in various markets to seek commercially reasonable lease concessions given the current environment.  

Recent Accounting Standards— In April 2020, the FASB issued interpretive guidance that indicated it would be acceptable for entities to make an election to account for lease concessions related to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic consistent with how those concessions would be accounted for under Topic 842, as though enforceable rights and obligations for those concessions existed (regardless of whether those enforceable rights and obligations for the concessions explicitly exist in the contract).  The FASB also indicated it was acceptable to treat deferral of lease payments with no substantive changes to the contract as if there was no change to the contract. The Company has elected to treat COVID-19 related lease concessions as variable lease expense and COVID-19 related lease deferrals as there was no change to the contract assuming they are short-term in nature.  For leases where rent concessions are

A putative class action, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against us in the Eastern District Count of California, Sacramento Division under case number 2:16-cv-01802-SB in August 2016.  Alexandra Bernal filed the initial complaint and then in October 2016 added Alexia Herrera as a named plaintiff and Alexandra Bernal left the case.  The putative class action lawsuit against us alleges, among other things, various violations of California’s wage and hour laws, including alleged violations of failure to pay reporting time.  In May 2017 we moved for judgment on the pleadings in that plaintiff’s cause of action for reporting-time pay should fail as a matter of law as the plaintiff and the other putative class members did not “report for work” with respect to certain shifts on which the plaintiff’s claims are based.  In August 2017, the court denied the motion.  However, in October 2017 the district court certified the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings for immediate interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  We then filed a petition for permission to appeal the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which petition was then granted in January 2018.  Our opening appellate brief was filed on June 6, 2018 and the plaintiff’s answering appellate brief was filed August 6, 2018.  Our reply brief to the Plaintiff’s answering appellate brief was filed on September 26, 2018 and oral arguments were completed on February 4, 2019.  On May 20, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted our motion for leave to file a supplemental brief addressing new authority. On June 10, 2019, the plaintiff’s supplemental answering brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  We then filed our supplemental reply brief to the plaintiff’s supplemental answering brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 24, 2019. On March 19, 2020 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published its opinion (i) affirming the District Court’s denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff’s reporting time pay and minimum wage claims, (ii) reversing the District Court’s denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff’s expense reimbursement claim and (iii) refusing to certify the reporting time pay question to the California Supreme Court.  On April 2, 2020 we filed a petition for rehearing en banc to certify the reporting time pay question to the California Supreme Court and on April 27, 2020 plaintiff filed a response to our petition for rehearing en banc. We in turn filed a reply in support of our petition for rehearing en banc on May 1, 2020. On May 14, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied our petition for rehearing en banc. Given the current status of this case, we are unable to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome is adverse, to estimate an amount, or range, of reasonably possible loss. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so.