Table of Contents

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

x                QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended May 4, 2013

OR

o                   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from           to           

Commission file number 001-09338

MICHAELS STORES, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

8000 Bent Branch Drive

Irving, Texas 75063

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

(972) 409-1300

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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 o  No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x  No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o  No x

As of May 21, 2013, 118,687,391 shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock were outstanding.

*The Registrant has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but is not required to file such reports under such sections.

Table of Contents

MICHAELS STORES, INC.

FORM 10-Q

2

Table of Contents

MICHAELS STORES, INC.

Part I—FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.  Financial Statements.

MICHAELS STORES, INC.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(in millions, except share data)

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

3

Table of Contents

MICHAELS STORES, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(in millions)

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

4

Table of Contents

MICHAELS STORES, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(in millions)

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

5

Table of Contents

MICHAELS STORES, INC.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the Quarter Ended May 4, 2013

(Unaudited)

Note 1.  Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Michaels Stores, Inc. and our wholly-owned subsidiaries. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated. All expressions of the “Company”, “us,” “we,” “our,” and all similar expressions are references to Michaels Stores, Inc. and our consolidated, wholly-owned subsidiaries, unless otherwise expressly stated or the context otherwise requires.

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. Therefore, these financial statements should be read in conjunction with our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2013.

The balance sheet at February 2, 2013 has been derived from the audited financial statements at that date, but does not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP for complete financial statements.

In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals and other items) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included.

Because of the seasonal nature of our business, the results of operations for the quarter ended May 4, 2013 are not indicative of the results to be expected for the entire year.

We report on the basis of a 52- or 53-week fiscal year, which ends on the Saturday closest to January 31. All references herein to “fiscal 2013” relate to the 52 weeks ending February 1, 2014, and all references to”fiscal 2012” relate to the 53 weeks ended February 2, 2013. In addition, all references herein to “the first quarter of fiscal 2013” relate to the 13 weeks ended May 4, 2013, and all references to “the first quarter of fiscal 2012” relate to the 13 weeks ended April 28, 2012.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In February 2013, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2013-02, Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income, an amendment to Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 220, Comprehensive Income. ASU No. 2013-02 requires an entity to report the effect of significant reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income on the respective line items in net income if the amount being reclassified is required under U.S. GAAP to be reclassified in its entirety to net income. For other items not reclassified in their entirety to net income in the same reporting period, an entity is required to cross-reference other disclosures required under GAAP that provide additional detail about those amounts.  This standard, which is prospective, is effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2012, with earlier adoption permitted.  We adopted all requirements of this standard on February 3, 2013, the beginning of fiscal 2013.

6

Table of Contents

Note 2.  Debt

Our outstanding debt is detailed in the table below.  We were in compliance with the terms and conditions of all debt agreements for all periods presented.

113/8% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2016

On January 28, 2013, we caused to be delivered to the holders of our outstanding 113/8% Senior Subordinated Notes due November 1, 2016 (the “Senior Subordinated Notes”) an irrevocable notice relating to the redemption of $137 million in aggregate principal amount of the Senior Subordinated Notes. On February 27, 2013, we redeemed the $137 million of Senior Subordinated Notes at a redemption price equal to 103.792%.  In accordance with ASC 470 Debt, we recorded a loss on early extinguishment of debt of approximately $7 million related to the partial redemption of our Senior Subordinated Notes. The $7 million loss is comprised of a $5 million redemption premium and $2 million to write off related debt issuance costs.

Restated Revolving Credit Facility

As of May 4, 2013, the borrowing base of our restated senior secured asset-based revolving credit facility (“the Restated Revolving Credit Facility”) was $650 million, of which we had $182 million in borrowings, $62 million of outstanding letters of credit and the unused borrowing capacity was $406 million.

Note 3.  Comprehensive Income

Accumulated other comprehensive income, net of tax, is reflected in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows:

7

Table of Contents

Note 4. Fair Value Measurements

As defined in ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.  ASC 820 establishes a three-level valuation hierarchy for fair value measurements. These valuation techniques are based upon observable and unobservable inputs. Observable inputs reflect market data obtained from independent sources, while unobservable inputs reflect less transparent active market data, as well as internal assumptions. These two types of inputs create the following fair value hierarchy:

·                  Level 1 — Quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets;

·                  Level 2 — Quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active; and model-derived valuations whose significant inputs are observable; and

·                  Level 3 — Instruments with significant unobservable inputs.

We apply fair value techniques on a non-recurring basis for the establishment of potential impairment loss related to goodwill pursuant to ASC 350, Intangibles—Goodwill and Other and determining the fair value of long-lived assets pursuant to ASC 360, Property, Plant, and Equipment. During the quarter ended May 4, 2013, there were no events or changes in circumstances indicating the carrying amounts of our goodwill or long-lived assets may not be recoverable.

The table below provides the carrying and fair values of our senior secured term loan facility (“Restated Term Loan Credit Facility”), our 73/4% Senior Notes that mature in 2018 (“2018 Senior Notes”) and our Senior Subordinated Notes, (together, with our 2018 Senior Notes, “our notes” ) as of May 4, 2013. The fair value of our Restated Term Loan Credit Facility was determined based on quoted market prices of similar instruments which are considered Level 2 inputs within the fair value hierarchy. The fair value of our notes was determined based on recent trades which are considered Level 1 inputs within the fair value hierarchy.

Note 5.  Income Taxes

The effective tax rate was 38.2% for the first quarter of fiscal 2013. The effective tax rate was 36.1% for the first quarter of fiscal 2012. The current year tax rate is higher than the prior year tax rate due primarily to the prior year favorable impact related to our reserve for uncertain tax positions..  We currently estimate our annualized effective tax rate for fiscal 2013 to be 37.7%.

Note 6.  Commitments and Contingencies

We are involved in ongoing legal and regulatory proceedings.  Other than those described in the following paragraphs, there were no material changes to our disclosures of commitments and contingencies from our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2013.

8

Table of Contents

Employee Claims

Adams Claim

On March 20, 2009, 114 individuals commenced an action against the Company styled Adams, et al. v. Michaels Stores, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint was later amended to add 15 additional plaintiffs.  In 2010, two additional lawsuits making the same allegations were filed in the Central District Court by eight additional plaintiffs, styled Borgen, et al. v. Michaels Stores, Inc. and Langstaff v. Michaels Stores, Inc., and were later consolidated with the Adams suit.  The Adams consolidated suit (“Adams”) alleges that the plaintiffs, certain former and current store managers in California, were improperly classified as exempt employees and, as such, Michaels failed to pay overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods (or compensation in lieu thereof), accurately record hours worked and provide itemized employee wage statements. The Adams suit additionally alleges that the foregoing conduct was in breach of California’s unfair competition law. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, damages for unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. We have entered into settlement agreements with virtually all of the individual plaintiffs for an amount that will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Ragano Claim

On July 11, 2011, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court in and for the County of San Mateo by Anita Ragano, as a purported class action proceeding on behalf of herself and all current and former hourly retail employees employed by Michaels stores in California. We removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on August 9, 2011. The complaint was subsequently amended to add an additional named plaintiff, Terri McDonald. The lawsuit alleges that Michaels stores failed to pay all wages and overtime, failed to provide its hourly employees with adequate meal and rest breaks (or compensation in lieu thereof), failed to timely pay final wages, unlawfully withheld wages and failed to provide accurate wage statements and further alleges that the foregoing conduct was in breach of various laws, including California’s unfair competition law. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, meal and rest break penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 10, 2012, we reached a class-wide settlement with plaintiffs and the Court granted final approval on April 22, 2013. The settlement will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Consumer Class Action Claims

California Zip Code Claims

On August 15, 2008, Linda Carson, a consumer, filed a purported class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (“San Diego Superior Court”), on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated California consumers. The Carson lawsuit alleges that Michaels unlawfully requested and recorded personally identifiable information (i.e., her zip code) as part of a credit card transaction. The plaintiff sought statutory penalties, costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees. We contested certification of this claim as a class action and filed a motion to dismiss the claim. On March 9, 2009, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice. The plaintiff appealed this decision to the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, San Diego. On July 22, 2010, the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the case. The plaintiff appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of California (“California Supreme Court”). On September 29, 2010, the California Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s petition for review; however, it stayed any further proceedings in the case until another similar zip code case pending before the court, Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, was decided. On February 10, 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled, in the Williams-Sonoma case, that zip codes are personally identifiable information and therefore the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, as amended (“Song Act”), prohibits businesses from requesting or requiring zip codes in connection with a credit card transaction. On or about April 6, 2011, the Supreme Court transferred the Carson case back to the Court of Appeals with directions to the Court to reconsider its decision in light of the Pineda decision. Upon reconsideration, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the San Diego Superior Court on May 31, 2011.

9

Table of Contents

Additionally, since the California Supreme Court decision on February 10, 2011, three additional purported class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Song Act have been filed against the Company: Carolyn Austin v. Michaels Stores, Inc. and Tiffany Heon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., both in the San Diego Superior Court and Sandra A. Rubinstein v. Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Central Division. The Rubinstein case was transferred to the San Diego Superior Court.  An order coordinating the cases has been entered and plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on April 24, 2012.  Plaintiffs seek damages, civil penalties, common settlement fund recovery, attorney fees, costs of suit and prejudgment interest.  The parties mediated the matter in March and a tentative settlement has been reached for an amount that will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Massachusetts Zip Code Claims

Relying in part on the California Supreme Court decision, an additional purported class action lawsuit was filed on May 20, 2011 against the Company: Melissa Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc. in the U.S. District Court-District of Massachusetts, alleging violation of a Massachusetts statute regarding the collection of personally identification information in connection with a credit card transaction.   On March 11, 2013, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on certified questions on the interpretation of the statute and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings.  Following the Judicial Court’s decision, an additional purported class action lawsuit asserting the same allegations in Tyler was filed in the U.S. District Court-District of Massachusetts by Susan D’Esposito, and the two cases have been consolidated.   We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims and we are unable, at this time, to estimate a range of loss, if any.

Pricing and Promotion

On April 30, 2012, William J. Henry, a consumer, filed a purported class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated Ohio consumers who purchased framing products and/or services from Michaels during weeks where Michaels was advertising a discount for framing products and/or services. The lawsuit alleges that Michaels advertised discounts on its framing products and/or services without actually providing a discount to its customers. The plaintiff is claiming violation of Ohio law ORC 1345.01 et seq., unjust enrichment and fraud. The plaintiff has alleged damages, penalties and fees not to exceed $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. We do not believe the resolution of this lawsuit will have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Data Breach Claims

Payment Card Terminal Tampering

On May 3, 2011, we were advised by the U.S. Secret Service that they were investigating certain fraudulent debit card transactions that occurred on accounts that had been used for legitimate purchases in selected Michaels stores. A subsequent internal investigation revealed that approximately 90 payment card terminals in certain Michaels stores had been physically tampered with, potentially resulting in customer debit and credit card information to be compromised. We have since removed and replaced approximately 7,100 payment card terminals comparable to the identified tampered payment card terminals from our Michaels stores.

On May 18, 2011, Brandi F. Ramundo, a consumer, filed a purported class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of herself and all similarly- situated U.S. consumers alleging that Michaels failed to take commercially reasonable steps to protect consumer financial data, and was in breach of contract and laws, including the Federal Stored Communications Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act.  A number of additional purported class action lawsuits significantly mirroring the claims in the Ramundo complaint were filed against the Company, and subsequently these cases and the Ramundo case  were consolidated and transferred to the Northern District of Illinois.

On August 20, 2012, we reached a tentative class-wide settlement with plaintiffs for an amount that will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements and the Court granted final approval on April 17, 2013.

10

Table of Contents

General

In addition to the litigation discussed above, we are, and in the future, may be involved in various other lawsuits, claims and proceedings incident to the ordinary course of business. The results of litigation are inherently unpredictable. Any claims against us, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of management time and result in diversion of significant resources.

ASC 450, Contingencies, governs the disclosure and recognition of loss contingencies, including potential losses from litigation and regulatory matters. It imposes different requirements for the recognition and disclosure of loss contingencies based on the likelihood of occurrence of the contingent future event or events. It distinguishes among degrees of likelihood using the following three terms: “probable”, meaning that “the future event or events are likely to occur”; “remote”, meaning that “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight”; and “reasonably possible”, meaning that “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely”. In accordance with ASC 450, the Company accrues for a loss contingency when we conclude that the likelihood of a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. When the loss cannot be reasonably estimated we estimate the range of amounts, and if no amount in the range constitutes a better estimate than any other amount, we accrue for the amount at the low end of the range. We adjust our accruals from time to time as we receive additional information, but the loss we incur may be significantly greater than or less than the amount we have accrued. We disclose loss contingencies if there is at least a reasonable possibility that a material loss has been incurred. No accrual or disclosure is required for losses that are remote.

For some of the matters disclosed above, as well as other matters previously disclosed in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the Company is currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued (if any). For some of the matters included within this estimation, an accrual has been made because a loss is believed to be both probable and reasonably estimable, but an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued; in these cases, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the accrued amount. For other matters included within this estimation, no accrual has been made because a loss, although estimable, is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable; in these cases the estimate reflects the reasonably possible loss or range of loss within the ranges identified. For the various ranges identified, the aggregate of these estimated amounts is approximately $14 million, which is also inclusive of amounts accrued by the Company.

For other matters disclosed above or as previously disclosed in the Company’s filings with the SEC, the Company is not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, and has indicated such. Many of these matters remain in preliminary stages (even in some cases where a substantial period of time has passed since the commencement of the matter), with few or no substantive legal decisions by the court defining the scope of the claims, the class (if any), or the potentially available damages, and fact discovery is still in progress or has not yet begun. For all these reasons, the Company cannot at this time estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, for these matters.

It is the opinion of the Company’s management, based on current knowledge and after taking into account its current legal accruals, the eventual outcome of all matters described in this Note would not be likely to have a material impact on the consolidated financial condition of the Company. Nonetheless, given the substantial or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters, and the inherent unpredictability of such matters, an adverse outcome in certain of these matters could, from time to time, have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.

Note 7.  Segments and Geographic Information

We consider our Michaels — U.S., Michaels — Canada, Aaron Brothers and online scrapbooking business operations to be our operating segments for purposes of determining reportable segments based on the criteria of ASC 280, Segment Reporting. We determined that our Michaels — U.S., Michaels — Canada, and Aaron Brothers operating segments have similar economic characteristics and meet the aggregation criteria set forth in ASC 280. Therefore, we combine those operating segments into one reporting segment.  As of May 4, 2013, the online scrapbooking business operating segment was immaterial to the financial statements as a whole. Accordingly, we will report in two reportable segments if Net sales, Operating income or loss, or Total assets of the online scrapbooking operating segment exceeds 10% of the consolidated amounts.

11

Table of Contents

Our sales and assets by country are as follows:

Our chief operating decision makers evaluate historical operating performance, plan and forecast future periods’ operating performance based on earnings before interest, income taxes, depreciation, amortization, and refinancing costs and losses on early extinguishment of debt (“EBITDA (excluding refinancing costs and losses on early extinguishment of debt)”). We believe EBITDA (excluding refinancing costs and losses on early extinguishment of debt) represents the financial measure that more closely reflects the operating effectiveness of factors over which management has control. As such, an element of base incentive compensation targets for certain management personnel are based on EBITDA (excluding refinancing costs and losses on early extinguishment of debt). A reconciliation of EBITDA (excluding refinancing costs and losses on early extinguishment of debt) to Net income is presented below.

12

Table of Contents

Note 8.  Related Party Transactions

We pay annual management fees to Bain Capital Partners, LLC (“Bain Capital”) and The Blackstone Group L.P. (“The Blackstone Group” and, together with Bain Capital, the “Sponsors”) and Highfields Capital Management LP in the amount of $12 million and $1 million, respectively. We recognized $4 million and $3 million of expense related to annual management fees during the first quarter of fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2012, respectively. These expenses are included in related party expenses on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income.

Bain Capital owns a majority equity position in LogicSource, an external vendor we utilize for print procurement services.  Payments associated with this vendor during each of the first quarters of fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2012 were $1 million and $2 million, respectively.  These expenses are included in Selling, general and administrative expense on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income.

The Blackstone Group owns a majority equity position in Brixmor Properties Group, a vendor we utilize to lease certain properties. Payments associated with this vendor during each of the first quarters of fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2012 were $1 million.  These expenses are included in Cost of sales and occupancy expense in the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income.

The Blackstone Group owns a majority equity position in RGIS, an external vendor we utilize to count our store inventory. Payments associated with this vendor during the first quarters of fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2012 were $1 million and $2 million, respectively. These expenses are included in Selling, general and administrative expense on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income.

The Blackstone Group owns a majority equity position in Vistar, an external vendor we utilize for all of the candy-type items in our stores.  Payments associated with this vendor during the first quarter of fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2012 were $6 million and $5 million, respectively. These expenses are recognized in cost of sales as the sales are recorded.

Our current directors (other than Jill A. Greenthal) are affiliates of Bain Capital or The Blackstone Group.  As such, some or all of such directors may have an indirect material interest in payments with respect to debt securities of the Company that have been purchased by affiliates of Bain Capital and The Blackstone Group.  As of May 4, 2013, affiliates of The Blackstone Group held $34 million of our senior secured term loan.

Note 9.  Condensed Consolidating Financial Information

All obligations of Michaels Stores, Inc. under our notes, the Restated Revolving Credit Facility and the Rested Term Loan Credit Facility are guaranteed by each of our subsidiaries other than Aaron Brothers Card Services, LLC, Artistree of Canada, ULC and Michaels Stores of Puerto Rico, LLC. As of May 4, 2013, the financial statements of Aaron Brothers Card Services, LLC, Artistree of Canada, ULC and Michaels Stores of Puerto Rico, LLC were immaterial. Each subsidiary guarantor is 100% owned by the parent and all guarantees are joint and several and full and unconditional.

The following condensed consolidating financial information represents the financial information of Michaels Stores, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary guarantors, prepared on the equity basis of accounting.  The information is presented in accordance with the requirements of Rule 3-10 under the SEC’s Regulation S-X.  The financial information may not necessarily be indicative of results of operations, cash flows, or financial position had the subsidiary guarantors operated as independent entities.

13

Table of Contents

Supplemental Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheet

14

Table of Contents

Supplemental Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheet

15

Table of Contents

Supplemental Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheet

16

Table of Contents

Supplemental Condensed Consolidating Statement of Comprehensive Income