Table of Contents New York State Environmental Matters In August 1997, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) and the Company entered into a consent order whereby the Company assumed responsibility for conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RIFS”) and implementing an interim remedial measure (“IRM”) with regard to the site of a knitting mill operated by a former subsidiary of the Company from 1965 to 1969. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), which assumed primary regulatory responsibility for the site from NYSDEC, issued a Record of Decision in September 2007. The Record of Decision specified a remedy of a combination of groundwater extraction and treatment and in-situ chemical oxidation. In September 2015, the EPA adopted an amendment to the Record of Decision eliminating the separate ground-water extraction and treatment systems and the use of in-situ oxidation from the remedy adopted in the Record of Decision. The amendment provides for the continued operation and maintenance of the existing wellhead treatment systems on wells operated by the Village of Garden City, New York (the "Village"). It also requires the Company to perform certain ongoing monitoring, operation and maintenance activities and to reimburse EPA's future oversight cost, involving future costs to the Company estimated to be between $1.7 million and $2.0 million, and to reimburse EPA for approximately $1.25 million of interim oversight costs. On August 15, 2016, the Court entered a Consent Judgment implementing the remedy provided for by the amendment. The Village additionally asserted that the Company is liable for the costs associated with enhanced treatment required by the impact of the groundwater plume from the site on two public water supply wells, including historical total costs ranging from approximately $1.8 million to in excess of $2.5 million, and future operation and maintenance costs which the Village estimated at $126,400 annually while the enhanced treatment continues. On December 14, 2007, the Village filed a complaint (the "Village Lawsuit") against the Company and the owner of the property under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) as well as a number of state law theories in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking an injunction requiring the defendants to remediate contamination from the site and to establish their liability for future costs that may be incurred in connection with it. In June 2016 the Company and the Village reached an agreement providing for the Village to continue to operate and maintain the well head treatment systems in accordance with the Record of Decision and to release its claims against the Company asserted in the Village Lawsuit in exchange for a lump-sum payment of $10.0 million by the Company. On August 25, 2016, the Village Lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. The cost of the settlement with the Village and the estimated costs associated with the Company's compliance with the Consent Judgment were covered by the Company's existing provision for the site. The settlement with the Village did not have, and the Company expects that the Consent Judgment will not have, a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations. 108 Environmental Matters Note 13 Legal Proceedings and Other Matters Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements Genesco Inc. and Subsidiaries