Back to GetFilings.com

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

FORM 10-Q

QUARTERLY REPORT

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended August 1, 2003

Commission file number 001-11421

DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant:  (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No [  ]

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes [X ] No [  ]

The number of shares of common stock outstanding on August 15, 2003 was 334,702,065.

PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)

1.

Basis of presentation and accounting policies

Basis of presentation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of Dollar General Corporation (the “Company”) have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for interim financial information and are presented in accordance with the requirements of Form 10-Q and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X.  Such financial statements consequently do not include all of the disclosures normally required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States or those normally made in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K.  Accordingly, the reader of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q should refer to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2003 for additional information.

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the Company’s customary accounting practices and have not been audited.  In management’s opinion, all adjustments (which are of a normal recurring nature) necessary for a fair presentation of the consolidated financial position and results of operations for the 13-week and 26-week periods ended August 1, 2003 and August 2, 2002 have been made.

Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation. Ongoing estimates of inventory shrinkage and markdowns are included in the interim cost of goods sold calculation.  Because the Company’s business is moderately seasonal, the results for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the entire year.

Accounting pronouncements

In April 2002, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 145, “Rescission of FASB Statements No. 4, 44, and 64, Amendment of FASB Statement No. 13, and Technical Corrections.”  SFAS No. 145 rescinds both SFAS No. 4, “Reporting Gains and Losses from Extinguishment of Debt,” and the amendment to SFAS No. 4, SFAS No. 64, “Extinguishments of Debt Made to Satisfy Sinking-Fund Requirements.” Generally, under SFAS No. 145, gains and losses from debt extinguishments will no longer be classified as extraordinary items. The Company adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 145 on February 1, 2003 and the adoption of SFAS No. 145 did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

In July 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 146, “Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities.”  SFAS No. 146 nullifies Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”) Issue No. 94-3, “Liability Recognition for Certain Employee Termination Benefits and Other Costs to Exit an Activity (including Certain Costs Incurred in a Restructuring)” (“EITF 94-3”). SFAS No. 146 requires that a liability for a cost associated with an exit or disposal activity be recognized when the liability is incurred, whereas EITF 94-3 had recognized the liability at the commitment date to an exit plan.  The Company was required to adopt the provisions of SFAS No. 146 effective for exit or disposal activities initiated after December 31, 2002.  The adoption of SFAS No. 146 did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations .

In November 2002, the EITF reached a consensus on EITF Issue No. 02-16 “Accounting by a Customer (including a Reseller) for Certain Consideration Received from a Vendor” (“EITF 02-16”) which addresses the accounting and income statement classification for consideration given by a vendor to a retailer in connection with the sale of the vendor’s products or for the promotion of sales of the vendor’s products. The EITF concluded that such consideration received from vendors should be reflected as a decrease in prices paid for inventory and recognized in cost of sales as the related inventory is sold, unless specific criteria are met qualifying the consideration for treatment as reimbursement of specific, identifiable incremental costs.  As clarified by the EITF in January 2003, this issue is effective for arrangements with vendors initiated on or after January 1, 200 3. The provisions of this consensus have been applied prospectively and are consistent with the Company’s existing accounting policy. Accordingly, the adoption of EITF 02-16 did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

FASB Interpretation No. 46, “Accounting for Variable Interest Entities” (“FIN 46”), expands upon current guidance relating to when a company should include in its financial statements the assets, liabilities and activities of a Variable Interest Entity (“VIE”). The consolidation requirements of FIN 46 apply immediately to VIEs created after January 31, 2003. The consolidation requirements apply for “older” VIEs in the first fiscal year or interim period beginning after June 15, 2003, which would apply for the Company beginning in the third quarter of 2003.  The Company leases four of its distribution centers (“DCs”) from lessors, which meet the definition of VIEs.  Two of these DCs have been recorded as financing obligations whereby the property and equipment, along with the related lease obligations, are reflected in the accompanying cond ensed consolidated balance sheets.  The other two DCs, excluding the equipment, have been recorded as operating leases in accordance with SFAS No. 98, “Accounting for Leases.”  The Company adopted the provisions of FIN 46 on August 2, 2003 and the adoption of FIN 46 did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

2.

Comprehensive income

Comprehensive income consists of the following (in thousands):

3.

Earnings per share

The amounts reflected below are in thousands except per share data.

Basic earnings per share was computed by dividing net income by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period.  Diluted earnings per share was determined based on the dilutive effect of stock options using the treasury stock method.

4.

Commitments and contingencies

Legal proceedings

Restatement-Related Proceedings. As previously disclosed in the Company’s periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), the Company restated its audited financial statements for fiscal years 1999 and 1998, and certain unaudited financial information for fiscal year 2000, by means of its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2001, which was filed on January 14, 2002. The SEC is conducting an investigation into the circumstances giving rise to the restatement. The Company is cooperating with this investigation by providing documents, testimony and other information to the SEC. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this investigation and the ultimate effects on the Company, if any.

In addition, as previously discussed in the Company’s periodic reports filed with the SEC, the Company settled in the second quarter of 2002 the lead shareholder derivative action relating to the restatement that had been filed in Tennessee State Court.  All other pending state and federal derivative cases were subsequently dismissed during the third quarter of fiscal 2002. The settlement of the shareholder derivative lawsuits resulted in a net payment to the Company, after attorney’s fees payable to the plaintiffs’ counsel, of approximately $25.2 million, which was recorded as income during the third quarter of 2002. The Company also settled the federal consolidated restatement-related class action lawsuit in the second quarter of fiscal 2002. The $162 million settlement was paid in the first half of fiscal 2002, but was previously expensed in the fourth quarter of 2000. The Co mpany received from its insurers $4.5 million in respect of such settlement in July 2002, which was recorded as income during the second quarter of 2002.

Plaintiffs representing fewer than 1% of the shares traded during the class period chose to opt out of the federal class action settlement and may elect to pursue recovery against the Company individually. In the fourth quarter of 2002, the Company settled and paid a claim by one such plaintiff and recognized an expense of $0.2 million in respect of that agreement. To the Company’s knowledge, no other litigation has yet been filed or threatened by parties who opted out of the class action settlement. The Company cannot predict whether any additional litigation will be filed or estimate the potential liabilities associated with such litigation, but it does not believe that the resolution of any such litigation will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Other Litigation.  On March 14, 2002, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to commence a purported collective action against the Company on behalf of current and former salaried store managers.  The complaint alleges that these individuals were entitled to overtime pay and should not have been classified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  Plaintiffs seek to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and attorneys’ fees.  This action is still in the initial discovery phase and the court has not found that the case should proceed as a collective action.  The Company believes that its store managers are and have been properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and that the action is not appropriate for collective action treatment.  Th e Company intends to vigorously defend the action.  However, no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in defending this action on the merits or otherwise, and, if not, the resolution could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

The Company is involved in other legal actions and claims arising in the ordinary course of business.  The Company currently believes that such litigation and claims, both individually and in the aggregate, will be resolved without a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.  However, litigation involves an element of uncertainty.  Future developments could cause these actions or claims to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Other matters

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) is currently conducting a normal examination of the Company’s 1998 and 1999 federal income tax returns.  The results of the examination, and any other issues discussed with the IRS in the course of the examination, may result in changes to the Company’s future tax liability.

5.

Stock-based compensation

The Company has a shareholder-approved stock incentive plan under which stock options, restricted stock and other equity-based awards may be granted to officers, directors and key employees. Stock options currently are granted under this plan at the market price on the grant date and generally vest ratably over a four-year period. A 500,000 share grant under this plan to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) in the first quarter of 2003, however, vests at a rate of 333,333 shares on the first anniversary, and 166,667 shares on the second anniversary, of the grant date. All stock options granted under this plan have a ten-year life.  Options granted prior to 2002 either pursuant to this plan or pursuant to other shareholder-approved stock incentive plans from which the Company no longer grants awards are subject to Company performance-based vesting, time-based vesting or a combination thereof, a nd have a ten-year life. In addition, prior to June 2003, the plan provided for automatic annual stock option grants to non-employee directors pursuant to a non-discretionary formula. Those stock options vest one year after the grant date and have a ten-year life.

The stock incentive plan was amended effective June 2, 2003 to provide for the automatic annual grant of 4,600 restricted stock units to each non-employee director (6,000 restricted stock units to any non-employee director serving as Chairman) in lieu of the automatic annual stock option grants. These units vest one year after the grant date, but no payout (in either cash or shares of common stock) shall be made until the director has ceased to be a member of the Board of Directors.

The terms of this plan limit the number of shares of restricted stock eligible for issuance thereunder to a maximum of 4 million shares. At August 1, 2003, 3,868,135 shares of restricted stock were available for grant under this plan.

In addition, as previously disclosed in the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 2, 2003, the Company granted stock options and restricted stock to its CEO in transactions that were not made under the stock incentive plan.

The Company accounts for stock option grants in accordance with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees” (“APB No. 25”), and related interpretations because the Company believes the alternative fair value accounting provided for under SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,” as amended by SFAS No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation – Transition and Disclosure,” requires the use of option valuation models that were not developed for use in valuing employee stock options.  Under APB No. 25, compensation expense is generally not recognized for plans in which the exercise price of the stock options equals the market price of the underlying stock on the date of grant and the number of shares subject to exercise is fixed. Had compensation cost for the Company’s stock - -based compensation plans been determined based on the fair value at the grant date for awards under these plans consistent with the methodology prescribed under SFAS No. 123, net income and earnings per share would have been reduced to the pro forma amounts indicated in the following table:

The pro forma effects on net income for the 13 weeks and 26 weeks ended August 1, 2003 and August 2, 2002 are not representative of the pro forma effect on net income in future periods because they do not take into consideration pro forma compensation expense related to grants made prior to 1995.

The fair value of options granted during the second quarter of 2003 and 2002 was $5.46 and $7.24 per share, respectively.  The fair value of options granted during the first half of 2003 and 2002 was $3.09 and $4.86 per share, respectively.  The fair value of each stock option grant was estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following assumptions:

The Black-Scholes option model was developed for use in estimating the fair value of traded options, which have no vesting restrictions and are fully transferable.  In addition, option valuation models require the input of highly subjective assumptions including the expected stock price volatility. Because the Company’s employee stock options have characteristics significantly different from those of traded options, and because changes in the subjective input assumptions can materially affect the fair value estimate, in management’s opinion, the existing models do not necessarily provide a reliable single measure of the fair value of its employee stock options.

6.

Segment reporting

The Company manages its business on the basis of one reportable segment. As of August 1, 2003 and August 2, 2002, all of the Company’s operations were located within the United States.  The following data is presented in accordance with SFAS No. 131, “Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information.”

7.

Long-term obligations and related promissory notes

In May 2003, the Company purchased two secured promissory notes (the “Notes”) from Principal Life Insurance Company totaling $49.6 million. These Notes represent debt issued by a third party entity from which the Company leases its DC in South Boston, Virginia. This existing lease is recorded as a financing obligation in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements. By acquiring these Notes, the Company is holding the debt instruments pertaining to its lease-financing obligation and, because a legal right of offset exists, has reflected the acquired Notes as a reduction of its outstanding financing obligations in its consolidated financial statements.  There was no gain or loss recognized as a result of this transaction.

8.

Guarantor subsidiaries

All of the Company’s subsidiaries, except for one subsidiary whose assets and revenues are not material (the “Guarantors”), have fully and unconditionally guaranteed on a joint and several basis the Company’s obligations under certain outstanding debt obligations.  Each of the Guarantors is a direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. In order to participate as a subsidiary guarantor on certain of the Company’s financing arrangements, a subsidiary of the Company has entered into a letter agreement with certain state regulatory agencies to maintain stockholders’ equity of at least $50 million in excess of the Company’s debt it has guaranteed  ($550 million as of August 1, 2003).

The following consolidating schedules present condensed financial information on a combined basis. Dollar amounts are in thousands.