COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Feb. 01, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments As of February 1, 2025, the Company entered into various purchase commitments for the next 12 months for merchandise for re-sale of approximately $96.9 million and approximately $56.4 million for equipment, construction, and other non-merchandise commitments. The Company also has operating lease and standby letters of credit commitments of $213.4 million and $16.0 million, respectively. Legal and Regulatory Matters The Company is a defendant in Rael v. The Children’s Place, Inc., a purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. In the initial complaint filed in February 2016, the plaintiff alleged that the Company falsely advertised discount prices in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in April 2016, adding allegations of violations of other state consumer protection laws. In August 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, adding an additional plaintiff and removing the other state law claims. The plaintiffs’ second amended complaint sought to represent a class of California purchasers and sought, among other items, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company engaged in mediation proceedings with the plaintiffs in December 2016 and April 2017. The parties reached an agreement in principle in April 2017, and signed a definitive settlement agreement in November 2017, to settle the matter on a class basis with all individuals in the U.S. who made a qualifying purchase at The Children’s Place from February 11, 2012 through January 28, 2020, the date of preliminary approval by the court of the settlement. The Company submitted its memorandum in support of final approval of the class settlement on March 2, 2021. On March 29, 2021, the court granted final approval of the class settlement and denied plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees, with the amount of attorney’s fees to be decided after the class recovery amount has been determined. The settlement provides merchandise vouchers for qualified class members who submit valid claims, as well as payment of legal fees and expenses and claims administration expenses. Vouchers were distributed to class members on November 15, 2021 and they were eligible for redemption in multiple rounds through November 2023. On February 23, 2024, a hearing on motion for preliminary injunction and permanent injunction and to enforce judgement and settlement agreement was held. Pending receipt of the court’s ruling, upon the court’s order, the plaintiff filed a renewed motion for attorneys’ fees, costs and incentive awards on March 4, 2024, to which the Company filed a statement of non-opposition on April 1, 2024. Because the plaintiff was seeking less than the maximum amount agreed to in the settlement, the Company requested that such difference in amount be distributed as vouchers to authorized class members, pursuant to the settlement agreement. The hearing for the motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive awards resulted in the court granting the plaintiff’s counsel approximately $0.3 million in fees, costs and incentive awards. The balance of funds initially reserved for the plaintiff counsel’s fees and costs have now been issued as a single, final round of merchandise vouchers for qualified class members, which expired in March 2025. In connection with the settlement, the Company recorded a reserve for $5.0 million in its consolidated financial statements in the first quarter of 2017. Following the court’s recent decision(s), the Company released $2.3 million from its previously established reserve during Fiscal 2024, which is recorded within Selling, general and administrative expenses. Similar to the Rael case above, the Company is also a defendant in Gabriela Gonzalez v. The Children’s Place, Inc., a purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. The plaintiff alleged that the Company had falsely advertised discounts that do not exist, in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Laws, False Advertising Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the plaintiff did not oppose, and the court granted the motion on August 17, 2022—staying the case pending the outcome of the arbitration. The demand for arbitration was filed on October 4, 2022, in connection with the individual claim of the plaintiff. A mass arbitration firm associated with plaintiff’s counsel then conducted an advertising campaign for claimants to conduct a mass arbitration. In part, to avoid the mass arbitration, the parties stipulated to return the original plaintiff’s claim to court to proceed as a class action. Accordingly, the arbitration would not be proceeding and the Company’s response to the original plaintiff’s complaint in court was filed on July 20, 2023. On August 16, 2023, however, the Company began to receive notices regarding an initial tranche of approximately 1,300 individual demands that were filed with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (“JAMS”) as part of a related mass arbitration claim. The parties participated in mediation proceedings on November 15, 2023 and February 9, 2024. The parties agreed to further discuss settlement options in May 2024, which occurred without resolution. In late May, due to the judge’s retirement, the Gonzalez action was transferred and reassigned to a different judge. Deadlines were therefore reset, including the Company’s motion to dismiss. On June 10, 2024, JAMS advised that it would be pausing its administration of the claims until the parties resolve their dispute over which set of arbitration terms apply to the case. The Company’s motion to dismiss was denied in November 2024. Any liability arising out of these proceedings is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company is also involved in various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, any ultimate liability arising out of these proceedings is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

The Company is a defendant in Rael v. The Children’s Place, Inc., a purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. In the initial complaint filed in February 2016, the plaintiff alleged that the Company falsely advertised discount prices in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in April 2016, adding allegations of violations of other state consumer protection laws. In August 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, adding an additional plaintiff and removing the other state law claims. The plaintiffs’ second amended complaint sought to represent a class of California purchasers and sought, among other items, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Company engaged in mediation proceedings with the plaintiffs in December 2016 and April 2017. The parties reached an agreement in principle in April 2017, and signed a definitive settlement agreement in November 2017, to settle the matter on a class basis with all individuals in the U.S. who made a qualifying purchase at The Children’s Place from February 11, 2012 through January 28, 2020, the date of preliminary approval by the court of the settlement. The Company submitted its memorandum in support of final approval of the class settlement on March 2, 2021. On March 29, 2021, the court granted final approval of the class settlement and denied plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees, with the amount of attorney’s fees to be decided after the class recovery amount has been determined. The settlement provides merchandise vouchers for qualified class members who submit valid claims, as well as payment of legal fees and expenses and claims administration expenses. Vouchers were distributed to class members on November 15, 2021 and they were eligible for redemption in multiple rounds through November 2023. On February 23, 2024, a hearing on motion for preliminary injunction and permanent injunction and to enforce judgement and settlement agreement was held. Pending receipt of the court’s ruling, upon the court’s order, the plaintiff filed a renewed motion for attorneys’ fees, costs and incentive awards on March 4, 2024, to which the Company filed a statement of non-opposition on April 1, 2024. Because the plaintiff was seeking less than the maximum amount agreed to in the settlement, the Company requested that such difference in amount be distributed as vouchers to authorized class members, pursuant to the settlement agreement. The hearing for the motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive awards resulted in the court granting the plaintiff’s counsel approximately $0.3 million in fees, costs and incentive awards. The balance of funds initially reserved for the plaintiff counsel’s fees and costs have now been issued as a single, final round of merchandise vouchers for qualified class members, which expired in March 2025. In connection with the settlement, the Company recorded a reserve for $5.0 million in its consolidated financial statements in the first quarter of 2017. Following the court’s recent decision(s), the Company released $2.3 million from its previously established reserve during Fiscal 2024, which is recorded within Selling, general and administrative expenses.

Similar to the Rael case above, the Company is also a defendant in Gabriela Gonzalez v. The Children’s Place, Inc., a purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. The plaintiff alleged that the Company had falsely advertised discounts that do not exist, in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Laws, False Advertising Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the plaintiff did not oppose, and the court granted the motion on August 17, 2022—staying the case pending the outcome of the arbitration. The demand for arbitration was filed on October 4, 2022, in connection with the individual claim of the plaintiff. A mass arbitration firm associated with plaintiff’s counsel then conducted an advertising campaign for claimants to conduct a mass arbitration. In part, to avoid the mass arbitration, the parties stipulated to return the original plaintiff’s claim to court to proceed as a class action. Accordingly, the arbitration would not be proceeding and the Company’s response to the original plaintiff’s complaint in court was filed on July 20, 2023. On August 16, 2023, however, the Company began to receive notices regarding an initial tranche of approximately 1,300 individual demands that were filed with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (“JAMS”) as part of a related mass arbitration claim. The parties participated in mediation proceedings on November 15, 2023 and February 9, 2024. The parties agreed to further discuss settlement options in May 2024, which occurred without resolution. In late May, due to the judge’s retirement, the Gonzalez action was transferred and reassigned to a different judge. Deadlines were therefore reset, including the Company’s motion to dismiss. On June 10, 2024, JAMS advised that it would be pausing its administration of the claims until the parties resolve their dispute over which set of arbitration terms apply to the case. The Company’s motion to dismiss was denied in November 2024. Any liability arising out of these proceedings is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.