(Mark One)

For the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015

OR

For the transition period from to

Commission file number: 1-9494

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (212) 755-8000

Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report

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 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 (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes   x     No   ¨

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 Act).    Yes   ¨    No   x

APPLICABLE ONLY TO CORPORATE ISSUERS: Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common stock as of the latest practicable date: Common Stock, $.01 par value, 128,211,842 shares outstanding at the close of business on October 31, 2015 .

TIFFANY & CO. AND SUBSIDIARIES

INDEX TO FORM 10-Q

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2015

TIFFANY & CO. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Unaudited)

( in millions, except per share amounts )

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

TIFFANY & CO. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS

(Unaudited)

(in millions, except per share amounts)

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

TIFFANY & CO. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE EARNINGS

(Unaudited)

(in millions)

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

TIFFANY & CO. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY

(Unaudited)

( in millions )

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

TIFFANY & CO. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

(in millions)

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

TIFFANY & CO. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Tiffany & Co. (also referred to as the Registrant) and its subsidiaries (the "Company") in which a controlling interest is maintained. Controlling interest is determined by majority ownership interest and the absence of substantive third-party participating rights or, in the case of variable interest entities ("VIEs"), if the Company has the power to significantly direct the activities of a VIE, as well as the obligation to absorb significant losses of or the right to receive significant benefits from the VIE. Intercompany accounts, transactions and profits have been eliminated in consolidation. The interim statements are unaudited and, in the opinion of management, include all adjustments (which represent normal recurring adjustments) necessary to fairly state the Company's financial position as of October 31, 2015 and 2014 and the results of its operations and cash flows for the interim periods presented. The condensed consolidated balance sheet data for January 31, 2015 is derived from the audited financial statements, which are included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K and should be read in connection with these financial statements. As permitted by the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, these financial statements do not include all disclosures required by generally accepted accounting principles.

The Company's business is seasonal in nature, with the fourth quarter typically representing approximately one-third of annual net sales and a higher percentage of annual net earnings. Therefore, the results of its operations for the three and nine months ended October 31, 2015 and 2014 are not necessarily indicative of the results of the entire fiscal year.

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Accounting Standards Update ("ASU") No. 2014-09 – Revenue From Contracts with Customers , to clarify the principles of recognizing revenue and create common revenue recognition guidance between U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and International Financial Reporting Standards. The core principle of the guidance is that a company should recognize revenue when it transfers promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the company expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. In doing so, companies will need to use more judgment and make more estimates than under current guidance. These may include identifying performance obligations in the contract, estimating the amount of variable consideration to include in the transaction price and allocating the transaction price to each separate performance obligation. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-14 – Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Deferral of the Effective Date , deferring the effective date for one year to interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted as of the original effective date, interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and retrospective application is required. Management is currently evaluating the impact of this ASU on the consolidated financial statements.

In February 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-02 – Amendments to the Consolidation Analysis , which amends the criteria for determining which entities are considered VIEs, amends the criteria for determining if a service provider possesses a variable interest in a VIE and ends the deferral granted to investment companies for application of the VIE consolidation model. This ASU is effective for fiscal years and interim periods within those years beginning after December 15, 2015 and early adoption is permitted. Management is currently evaluating the impact of this ASU on the consolidated financial statements.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-03 – Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs , which changes the presentation of debt issuance costs in financial statements. Under the ASU, an entity will present such costs in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the related debt liability rather than as an asset. Amortization of the costs will continue to be reported as interest expense. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-15 – Presentation and Subsequent Measurement of Debt

Issuance Costs Associated with Line-of-Credit Arrangements , which indicates the Securities and Exchange Commission staff would not object to an entity deferring and presenting debt issuance costs related to line-of-credit arrangements as an asset and subsequently amortizing the deferred debt issuance costs ratably over the term of the line-of-credit arrangement, regardless of whether there are any outstanding borrowings on the line-of-credit arrangement. ASU 2015-03 is effective retrospectively for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015 and early adoption is permitted. The Company expects to adopt ASU 2015-03 beginning on February 1, 2016 and the adoption of the new guidance is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's financial condition and financial statement disclosures.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-05 – Customer's Accounting for Fees Paid in a Cloud Computing Arrangement (an update to Subtopic 350-40, Intangibles – Goodwill and Other – Internal-Use Software ), which provides guidance on accounting for cloud computing fees. If a cloud computing arrangement includes a software license, then the customer should account for the license element of the arrangement consistent with the acquisition of other software licenses. If a cloud computing arrangement does not include a software license, the arrangement should be accounted for as a service contract. This ASU is effective for arrangements entered into, or materially modified, in interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015. Retrospective application is permitted but not required. Management is currently evaluating the impact of this ASU on the consolidated financial statements.

In July 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-11 – Inventory (Topic 330): Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory , which states an entity should measure inventory at the lower of cost and net realizable value. Net realizable value is the estimated selling prices in the ordinary course of business, less reasonably predictable costs of completion, disposal and transportation. This amendment applies to all inventory that is measured using the average costs or first-in first-out (FIFO) methods. This supersedes prior guidance which allowed entities to measure inventory at the lower of cost or market, where market could be replacement cost, net realizable value or net realizable value less an approximately normal profit margin. This ASU is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016. The amendments should be applied prospectively and earlier application is permitted. Management is currently evaluating the impact of this ASU on the consolidated financial statements.

Receivables. The Company maintains an allowance for doubtful accounts for estimated losses associated with the accounts receivable recorded on the balance sheet. The allowance is determined based on a combination of factors including, but not limited to, the length of time that the receivables are past due, management's knowledge of the customer, economic and market conditions and historical write-off experiences.

For the receivables associated with Tiffany & Co. credit cards ("Credit Card Receivables"), management uses various indicators to determine whether to extend credit to customers and, if so, the amount of credit. Such indicators include reviewing prior experience with the customer, including sales and collection history, and using applicants' credit reports and scores provided by credit rating agencies. Credit Card Receivables require minimum balance payments. A Credit Card account is classified as overdue if a minimum balance payment has not been received within the allotted timeframe (generally 30 days), after which internal collection efforts commence. For all Credit Card Receivables recorded on the balance sheet, once all internal collection efforts have been exhausted and management has reviewed the account, the account balance is written off and may be sent for external collection or legal action. At October 31, 2015 and 2014 , the carrying amount of the Credit Card Receivables (recorded in accounts receivable, net) was $66.2 million and $ 54.9 million, of which 96% and 97% was considered current in the respective periods. The allowance for doubtful accounts for estimated losses associated with the Credit Card Receivables (approximately $1.0 million at October 31, 2015 and 2014 ) was determined based on the factors discussed above. Finance charges earned on Credit Card accounts are not significant.

Financing Arrangements. The Company has provided financing to diamond mining and exploration companies in order to obtain rights to purchase the mine's output. Management evaluates these financing arrangements for potential impairment by reviewing the parties' financial statements along with projections and business, operational and other economic factors on a periodic basis. At October 31, 2015 and 2014 , the current portion of the carrying amount of financing arrangements including accrued interest was $3.3 million and $23.9 million and was recorded in prepaid expenses and other current assets. At October 31, 2015 and 2014 , the non-current portion of the carrying amount of financing arrangements including accrued interest was $46.6 million and $39.8 million and was included in other assets, net.

As of July 31, 2015, the Company had a $44.1 million financing arrangement (the "Loan") with Koidu Limited (previously Koidu Holdings S.A.) ("Koidu"). On April 30, 2015, the Company agreed to defer Koidu's principal payment due on March 30, 2015, subject to certain conditions set forth in the amendment, which were met in June 2015. In August 2015, Koidu requested that its interest payment due in July 2015 be deferred until a future date to be determined, and it advised the Company that it was likely to request a deferral of interest payments due in August and September of 2015. Additionally, Koidu had informed the Company that it was seeking additional sources of capital to fund ongoing operations of the mine. Based on those discussions with Koidu, and with consideration given to the fact that Koidu did not respond to the Company's request for a proposed revised payment schedule for its obligations under the Loan, management believed that it was probable that the Company would be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the Loan, and recorded an impairment charge, and related valuation allowance, of $9.6 million in the three months ended July 31, 2015. Additionally, the Company ceased accruing interest income on the outstanding Loan balance.

As of October 31, 2015, Koidu did not make its interest payments due in August, September and October of 2015 as well as its principal payment due in September 2015. The missed payments constitute events of default under the Loan. While Koidu has not yet provided a proposed revised payment schedule for its obligations under the Loan, the Company continues to participate in discussions with Koidu regarding its operational plans and forecasts, cash flow projections for the mine, and potential revisions to the payment schedule for the Loan. The outcome of these discussions, as well as any other developments, will inform discussions regarding the Loan repayment schedule as well as management's ongoing evaluation of the collectability of the Loan and the accrual of interest income. The Company recorded no additional impairment charges in the three months ended October 31, 2015. The Loan's net carrying amount of $34.5 million is included in the non-current portion of the carrying amount of financing arrangements discussed above. See "Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies" for additional information on this financing arrangement.

The Company recorded no material impairment charges on such loans as of October 31, 2014 .

The effective income tax rate for the three months ended October 31, 2015 and 2014 was 35.5% . The effective income tax rate for the nine months ended October 31, 2015 was 34.8% versus 35.3% in the prior year. The effective income tax rate for the nine months ended October 31, 2015 included a decrease of  0.3  percentage point due to the impact of a valuation allowance release. The effective income tax rate for the nine months ended October 31, 2014 included an increase of 1.1 percentage points due to the one-time impact of changes in state tax legislation offset by the favorable impact of a valuation allowance release of 0.3 percentage point.

During the nine months ended October 31, 2015 , the change in the gross amount of unrecognized tax benefits and accrued interest and penalties was not significant.

The Company conducts business globally, and, as a result, is subject to taxation in the U.S. and various state and foreign jurisdictions. As a matter of course, tax authorities regularly audit the Company. The Company's tax filings are currently being examined by a number of tax authorities in several jurisdictions, both in the U.S. and in foreign jurisdictions. Ongoing audits where subsidiaries have a material presence include New York City (tax years 2011 – 2012 ) and New York State (tax years 2012 – 2013 ), as well as an audit that is being conducted by the IRS (tax years 2010 – 2012 ). Tax years from 2010 –present are open to examination in the U.S. Federal jurisdiction and 2006 –present are open in various state, local and foreign jurisdictions. As part of these audits, the Company engages in discussions with taxing authorities regarding tax positions. At January 31, 2015, total unrecognized tax benefits were $8.3 million of which approximately $5.3 million , if recognized, would affect the effective income tax rate. Management believes it is reasonably possible that a majority of the total gross amount provided for unrecognized tax benefits will decrease in the next 12 months. Future developments may result in a change in this assessment.

Basic earnings per share ("EPS") is computed as net earnings divided by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted EPS includes the dilutive effect of the assumed exercise of stock options and unvested restricted stock units.

The following table summarizes the reconciliation of the numerators and denominators for the basic and diluted EPS computations:

For the three and nine months ended October 31, 2015 and 2014 , there were 0.7 million and 0.3 million stock options and restricted stock units excluded from the computations of earnings per diluted share due to their antidilutive effect.

In the three months ended October 31, 2014, Tiffany & Co. issued $250.0 million aggregate principal amount of 3.8% Senior Notes due 2024 (the "2024 Notes") and $300.0 million aggregate principal amount of 4.9% Senior Notes due 2044 (the "2044 Notes", and, together with the 2024 Notes, the "Notes"). Tiffany & Co. used the net proceeds from the issuance of the Notes to redeem all of the aggregate principal amount outstanding of its (i) $100.0 million principal amount of 9.05% Series A Senior Notes due December 23, 2015; (ii) $125.0 million principal amount of 10.0% Series A-2009 Senior Notes due February 13, 2017; (iii) $50.0 million principal amount of 10.0% Series A Senior Notes due April 9, 2018; and (iv) $125.0 million principal amount of 10.0% Series B-2009 Senior Notes due February 13, 2019 (collectively, the "Private Placement Notes") prior to maturity in accordance with the respective note purchase agreements governing each series of Private Placement Notes, which included provisions for make-whole payments in the event of early redemption. As a result of the redemptions, the Company recorded a loss on extinguishment of debt of $93.8 million in the three months ended October 31, 2014.

There have been no material changes to the agreements governing the Credit Facilities or Senior Notes referenced in the table above since January 31, 2015.

At October 31, 2015, the Company was in compliance with all debt covenants.

Background Information

The Company uses derivative financial instruments, including interest rate swaps and forward contracts to mitigate a portion of its exposures to changes in interest rates, foreign currency and precious metal prices. Derivative instruments are recorded on the consolidated balance sheet at their fair values, as either assets or liabilities, with an offset to current or comprehensive earnings, depending on whether the derivative is designated as part of an effective hedge transaction and, if it is, the type of hedge transaction. If a derivative instrument meets certain hedge accounting criteria, it is designated as one of the following on the date it is entered into:

The Company formally documents the nature of and relationships between the hedging instruments and hedged items for a derivative to qualify as a hedge at inception and throughout the hedged period. The Company also documents its risk management objectives, strategies for undertaking the various hedge transactions and method of assessing hedge effectiveness. Additionally, for hedges of forecasted transactions, the significant characteristics and expected terms of a forecasted transaction must be identified, and it must be probable that each forecasted transaction will occur. If it were deemed probable that the forecasted transaction would not occur, the gain or loss on the derivative financial instrument would be recognized in current earnings. Derivative financial instruments qualifying for hedge accounting must maintain a specified level of effectiveness between the hedge instrument and the item being hedged, both at inception and throughout the hedged period.

The Company does not use derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes.

Types of Derivative Instruments

Interest Rate Swaps – In 2012, the Company entered into forward-starting interest rate swaps to hedge the impact of interest rate volatility on future interest payments associated with the anticipated incurrence of $250.0 million of additional debt which was incurred in July 2012. The Company accounted for the forward-starting interest rate swaps as cash flow hedges.

In 2014, the Company entered into forward-starting interest rate swaps to hedge the impact of interest rate volatility on future interest payments associated with the anticipated incurrence of long-term debt which was incurred in September 2014. The Company accounted for the forward-starting interest rate swaps as cash flow hedges, and recorded a loss within accumulated other comprehensive loss, which is being amortized over the terms of the notes to which the interest rate swaps related.

Foreign Exchange Forward Contracts – The Company uses foreign exchange forward contracts to offset a portion of the foreign currency exchange risks associated with foreign currency-denominated liabilities, intercompany transactions and forecasted purchases of merchandise between entities with differing functional currencies. The Company assesses hedge effectiveness based on the total changes in the foreign exchange forward contracts' cash flows. These foreign exchange forward contracts are designated and accounted for as either cash flow hedges or economic hedges that are not designated as hedging instruments.

As of October 31, 2015 , the notional amount of foreign exchange forward contracts accounted for as cash flow hedges was $185.8 million and the notional amount of foreign exchange forward contracts accounted for as undesignated hedges was $141.6 million. The maximum term of the Company's outstanding foreign exchange forward contracts as of October 31, 2015 is 12 months.

Precious Metal Forward Contracts – The Company periodically hedges a portion of its forecasted purchases of precious metals for use in its internal manufacturing operations through the use of forward contracts in order to manage the effect of volatility in precious metal prices. The Company accounts for its precious metal forward contracts as cash flow hedges. The Company assesses hedge effectiveness based on the total changes in the precious metal forward contracts' cash flows. During the three months ended October 31, 2015 , the Company increased the term over which it is hedging it exposure to volatility in precious metal prices, as well as the portion of expected future metals purchases hedged, which has increased the number of precious metal derivative instruments outstanding at the end of the period. As of October 31, 2015 , the maximum term over which the Company is hedging its exposure to the variability of future cash flows for all forecasted transactions is 25 months and there were precious metal derivative instruments outstanding for approximately 76,000 ounces of platinum, 1,500,000 ounces of silver and 34,100 ounces of gold.

Information on the location and amounts of derivative gains and losses in the condensed consolidated financial statements is as follows:

a The gain or loss recognized in earnings is included within Cost of sales.

b The gain or loss recognized in earnings is included within Interest and other expenses, net.

The gains and losses on derivatives not designated as hedging instruments were not significant in the periods ended October 31, 2015 and 2014 . There was no material ineffectiveness related to the Company's hedging instruments for the periods ended October 31, 2015 and 2014 . The Company expects the net amount of pre-tax derivative gains and losses included in accumulated other comprehensive income at October 31, 2015 to be reclassified into earnings within the next 12 months will not be material. This amount will vary due to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates and precious metal prices.

For information regarding the location and amount of the derivative instruments in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet, see "Note 9. Fair Value of Financial Instruments."

Concentration of Credit Risk

A number of major international financial institutions are counterparties to the Company's derivative financial instruments. The Company enters into derivative financial instrument agreements only with counterparties meeting certain credit standards (a credit rating of A-/A2 or better at the time of the agreement) and limits the amount of agreements or contracts it enters into with any one party. The Company may be exposed to credit losses in the event of nonperformance by individual counterparties or the entire group of counterparties.

Fair value is defined as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. U.S. GAAP establishes a fair value hierarchy which requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value. U.S. GAAP prescribes three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair value:

Level 1 – Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. Level 1 inputs are considered to carry the most weight within the fair value hierarchy due to the low levels of judgment required in determining fair values.

Level 2 – Observable market-based inputs or unobservable inputs that are corroborated by market data.

Level 3 – Unobservable inputs reflecting the reporting entity's own assumptions. Level 3 inputs are considered to carry the least weight within the fair value hierarchy due to substantial levels of judgment required in determining fair values.

The Company uses the market approach to measure fair value for its marketable securities, time deposits and derivative instruments. The Company's foreign exchange forward contracts are primarily valued using the appropriate foreign exchange spot rates. The Company's precious metal forward contracts are primarily valued using the relevant precious metal spot rate. For further information on the Company's hedging instruments and program, see "Note 8. Hedging Instruments."

Financial assets and liabilities carried at fair value at October 31, 2015 are classified in the tables below in one of the three categories described above: 

Financial assets and liabilities carried at fair value at October 31, 2014 are classified in the tables below in one of the three categories described above:

a Included within Other assets, net.

b Included within Short-term investments.

c Included within Prepaid expenses and other current assets.

d Included within Accounts payable and accrued liabilities.

The fair value of derivatives not designated as hedging instruments was not significant in the period ended October 31, 2014 . The fair value of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued liabilities approximates carrying value due to the short-term maturities of these assets and liabilities and would be measured using Level 1 inputs. The fair value of debt with variable interest rates approximates carrying value and is measured using Level 2 inputs. The fair value of debt with fixed interest rates was determined using the quoted market prices of debt instruments with similar terms and maturities, which are considered Level 2 inputs. The total carrying value of short-term borrowings and long-term debt was $1.1 billion and the corresponding fair value was approximately $1.1 billion at October 31, 2015 and 2014 .

Diamond Sourcing Activities. The Company has agreements with various diamond producers to purchase defined portions of their mines' output at prevailing fair market prices. In addition, the Company also regularly purchases rough and polished diamonds from other suppliers, although it has no contractual obligations to do so.

In consideration of its diamond supply agreements, the Company has provided financing to certain suppliers of its rough diamonds. In March 2011, Laurelton Diamonds, Inc. ("Laurelton"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, as lender, entered into a $50.0 million amortizing term loan facility agreement with Koidu, as borrower, and BSG Resources Limited, as a limited guarantor. Koidu operates a kimberlite diamond mine in Sierra Leone (the "Mine") from which Laurelton acquires diamonds. Koidu was required under the terms of the Loan to apply the proceeds of the Loan to capital expenditures necessary to increase the output of the Mine, among other purposes. As of July 31, 2011, the Loan was fully funded. In consideration of the Loan, Laurelton entered into a supply agreement, pursuant to which Laurelton is required to purchase at fair market value certain diamonds recovered from the Mine that meet Laurelton's quality standards. The assets of Koidu, including all equipment and rights in respect of the Mine, are subject to the security interest of a lender that is not affiliated with the Company. The Loan is partially secured by the diamonds, if any, that have been extracted from the Mine and that have not been sold to third parties. The Company has evaluated the variable interest entity consolidation requirements with respect to this transaction and has determined that it is not the primary beneficiary,

as it does not have the power to direct any of the activities that most significantly impact Koidu's economic performance.

On March 29, 2013, the Company entered into an amendment relating to the Loan which deferred principal and interest payments due in 2013 to subsequent years, and, on March 31, 2014, the Company entered into a further amendment providing that the principal payments due in 2014 be paid on a monthly basis rather than on a semi-annual basis. On April 30, 2015, the Company entered into a further amendment (the "2015 Amendment"). Pursuant to the 2015 Amendment, once certain customary conditions relating to the addition of one of Koidu's affiliates as an obligor under the Loan were satisfied, the principal payment due on March 30, 2015 would be deferred until a date to be specified by the Company (which date may be upon at least 30 days' written notice to Koidu, or upon the occurrence of certain specified acceleration conditions). As of June 2015, all of the conditions had been satisfied and the deferral of the principal payment due on March 30, 2015 had become effective, subject to the acceleration conditions set forth in the 2015 Amendment, which include Koidu remaining current on its other payment obligations to the Company. The Loan, as amended, is required to be repaid in full by March 2017 through semi-annual payments. Under the 2015 Amendment, the interest rate on the Loan was increased and, as of April 1, 2015, interest will accrue at a rate per annum that is the greater of (i) LIBOR plus 3.5% or (ii) 6.75% . Koidu also agreed to pay, and subsequently paid, an additional 2% per annum of interest on all deferred principal repayments.

At July 31, 2015, there was $44.1 million of principal and interest outstanding under this Loan (see "Note 3. Receivables and Financing Arrangements"). In August 2015, Koidu requested that its interest payment due in July 2015 be deferred until a future date to be determined, and it advised the Company that it was likely to request a deferral of interest payments due in August and September of 2015. Additionally, Koidu had informed the Company that it was seeking additional sources of capital to fund ongoing operations of the mine. Based on those discussions with Koidu and with consideration given to the fact that Koidu did not respond to the Company's request for a proposed revised payment schedule for its obligations under the Loan, management believed that it was probable that the Company would be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the Loan, and recorded an impairment charge, and related valuation allowance, of $9.6 million in the three months ended July 31, 2015. Additionally, the Company ceased accruing interest income on the outstanding Loan balance.

As of October 31, 2015, Koidu did not make its interest payments due in August, September and October of 2015 as well as its principal payment due in September 2015. The missed payments constitute events of default under the Loan. While Koidu has not yet provided a proposed revised payment schedule for its obligations under the Loan, the Company continues to participate in discussions with Koidu regarding its operational plans and forecasts, cash flow projections for the mine, and potential revisions to the payment schedule for the Loan. The outcome of these discussions, as well as any other developments, will inform discussions regarding the Loan repayment schedule as well as management's ongoing evaluation of the collectability of the Loan and the accrual of interest income. It is possible that such ongoing evaluation may result in additional changes to management's assessment of collectability. While such changes in management's assessment would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or cash flows, it is possible that such a change in assessment could affect the Company's earnings in the period in which such a change were to occur.

Arbitration Award. On December 21, 2013, an award was issued (the "Arbitration Award") in favor of The Swatch Group Ltd. ("Swatch") and its wholly-owned subsidiary Tiffany Watch Co. ("Watch Company"; Swatch and Watch Company, together, the "Swatch Parties") in an arbitration proceeding (the "Arbitration") between the Registrant and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Tiffany and Company and Tiffany (NJ) Inc. (the Registrant and such subsidiaries, together, the "Tiffany Parties") and the Swatch Parties.

The Arbitration was initiated in June 2011 by the Swatch Parties, who sought damages for alleged breach of agreements entered into by and among the Swatch Parties and the Tiffany Parties in December 2007 (the "Agreements"). The Agreements pertained to the development and commercialization of a watch business and, among other things, contained various licensing and governance provisions and approval requirements relating to business, marketing and branding plans and provisions allocating profits relating to sales of the watch business between the Swatch Parties and the Tiffany Parties.

In general terms, the Swatch Parties alleged that the Tiffany Parties breached the Agreements by obstructing and delaying development of Watch Company's business and otherwise failing to proceed in good faith. The Swatch Parties sought damages based on alternate theories ranging from CHF 73.0 million (or approximately $74.0 million at October 31, 2015 ) (based on its alleged wasted investment) to CHF 3.8 billion (or approximately $3.8 billion at October 31, 2015 ) (calculated based on alleged future lost profits of the Swatch Parties and their affiliates over the entire term of the Agreements).

The Registrant believes that the claims of the Swatch Parties are without merit. In the Arbitration, the Tiffany Parties defended against the Swatch Parties' claims vigorously, disputing both the merits of the claims and the calculation of the alleged damages. The Tiffany Parties also asserted counterclaims for damages attributable to breach by the Swatch Parties, stemming from the Swatch Parties' September 12, 2011 public issuance of a Notice of Termination purporting to terminate the Agreements due to alleged material breach by the Tiffany Parties, and for termination due to such breach. In general terms, the Tiffany Parties alleged that the Swatch Parties did not have grounds for termination, failed to meet the high standard for proving material breach set forth in the Agreements and failed to provide appropriate management, distribution, marketing and other resources for TIFFANY & CO. brand watches and to honor their contractual obligations to the Tiffany Parties regarding brand management. The Tiffany Parties' counterclaims sought damages based on alternate theories ranging from CHF 120.0 million (or approximately $121.0 million at October 31, 2015 ) (based on its wasted investment) to approximately CHF 540.0 million (or approximately $545.0 million at October 31, 2015 ) (calculated based on alleged future lost profits of the Tiffany Parties).

The Arbitration hearing was held in October 2012 before a three-member arbitral panel convened in the Netherlands pursuant to the Arbitration Rules of the Netherlands Arbitration Institute (the "Rules"), and the Arbitration record was completed in February 2013.

Under the terms of the Arbitration Award, and at the request of the Swatch Parties and the Tiffany Parties, the Agreements were deemed terminated. The Arbitration Award stated that the effective date of termination was March 1, 2013. Pursuant to the Arbitration Award, the Tiffany Parties were ordered to pay the Swatch Parties damages of CHF 402.7 million (the "Arbitration Damages"), as well as interest from June 30, 2012 to the date of payment, two-thirds of the cost of the Arbitration and two-thirds of the Swatch Parties' legal fees, expenses and costs. These amounts were paid in full in January 2014.

Prior to the ruling of the arbitral panel, no accrual was established in the Company's consolidated financial statements because management did not believe the likelihood of an award of damages to the Swatch Parties was probable. As a result of the ruling, in the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company recorded a charge of $480.2 million, which included the damages, interest, and other costs associated with the ruling and which was classified as Arbitration award expense in the consolidated statement of earnings.

On March 31, 2014, the Tiffany Parties took action in the District Court of Amsterdam to annul the Arbitration Award. Generally, arbitration awards are final; however, Dutch law does provide for limited grounds on which arbitral awards may be set aside. The Tiffany Parties petitioned to annul the Arbitration Award on these statutory grounds. These grounds include, for example, that the arbitral tribunal violated its mandate by changing the express terms of the Agreements.

A three-judge panel presided over the annulment hearing on January 19, 2015, and, on March 4, 2015, issued a decision in favor of the Tiffany Parties. Under this decision, the Arbitration Award is set aside. However, the Swatch Parties have taken action in the Dutch courts to appeal the District Court's decision, and the Arbitration Award may ultimately be upheld by the courts of the Netherlands. Registrant's management expects that the annulment action will not be ultimately resolved until, at the earliest, Registrant's fiscal year ending January 31, 2017.

If the Arbitration Award is finally annulled, management anticipates that the claims and counterclaims that formed the basis of the Arbitration, and potentially additional claims and counterclaims, will be litigated in court proceedings between and among the Swatch Parties and the Tiffany Parties. The identity and location of the courts that would hear such actions have not been determined at this time.

Management also anticipates that the Tiffany Parties would seek the return of the amounts paid by them under the Arbitration Award in court proceedings.

In any litigation regarding the claims and counterclaims that formed the basis of the arbitration, issues of liability and damages will be pled and determined without regard to the findings of the arbitral panel. As such, it is possible that the court could find that the Swatch Parties were in material breach of their obligations under the Agreements, that the Tiffany Parties were in material breach of their obligations under the Agreements or that neither the Swatch Parties nor the Tiffany Parties were in material breach. If the Swatch Parties' claims of liability were accepted by the court, the damages award cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, but could exceed the Arbitration Damages and could have a material adverse effect on the Registrant's consolidated financial statements or liquidity.

Although the District Court has issued a decision in favor of the Tiffany Parties, an amount will only be recorded for any return of amounts paid under the Arbitration Award when the District's Court decision is final (i.e., after any right of appeal has been exhausted) and return of these amounts is deemed probable and collection is reasonably assured. As such, the Company has not recorded any amounts in its consolidated financial statements related to the District Court's decision.

Additionally, management has not established any accrual in the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements for the quarter ended October 31, 2015 related to the annulment process or any potential subsequent litigation because it does not believe that the final annulment of the Arbitration Award and a subsequent award of damages exceeding the Arbitration Damages is probable.

Royalties payable to the Tiffany Parties by Watch Company under the Agreements were not significant in any year and watches manufactured by Watch Company and sold in TIFFANY & CO. stores constituted 1% of worldwide net sales in 2013 and 2012 . The Company is proceeding with the design, production, marketing and distribution of TIFFANY & CO. brand watches through certain of its Swiss subsidiaries. Management introduced new TIFFANY & CO. brand watches in April 2015.

Other Litigation Matters. The Company is from time to time involved in routine litigation incidental to the conduct of its business, including proceedings to protect its trademark rights, litigation with parties claiming infringement of patents and other intellectual property rights by the Company, litigation instituted by persons alleged to have been injured upon premises under the Company's control and litigation with present and former employees and customers. Although litigation with present and former employees is routine and incidental to the conduct of the Company's business, as well as for any business employing significant numbers of employees, such litigation can result in large monetary awards when a civil jury is allowed to determine compensatory and/or punitive damages for actions claiming discrimination on the basis of age, gender, race, religion, disability or other legally-protected characteristic or for termination of employment that is wrongful or in violation of implied contracts. However, the Company believes that all such litigation currently pending to which it is a party or to which its properties are subject will be resolved without any material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, earnings or cash flows.

Environmental Matter. In 2005, the US Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") designated a 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River (the "River") part of the Diamond Alkali "Superfund" site. This designation resulted from the detection of hazardous substances emanating from the site, which was previously home to the Diamond Shamrock Corporation, a manufacturer of pesticides and herbicides. Under the Superfund law, the EPA will negotiate with potentially responsible parties to agree on remediation approaches.

The Company, which operated a silverware manufacturing facility near a tributary of the River from approximately 1897 to 1985, is one of more than 300 parties (the "Potentially Responsible Parties") designated in litigation as potentially responsible parties with respect to the River. The EPA issued general notice letters to 125 of these parties. The Company, along with approximately 70 other Potentially Responsible Parties (collectively, the "Cooperating Parties Group" or "CPG") voluntarily entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent ("AOC") with the EPA in May 2007 to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (the "RI/FS") of the lower 17 miles of the River. In June 2012, most of the CPG voluntarily entered into a second AOC related to focused

remediation actions at Mile 10.9 of the River. The actions under the Mile 10.9 AOC are complete (except for continued monitoring), and the RI/FS submission under the 2007 AOC was submitted as complete on April 30, 2015. The Company has accrued for its financial obligations under both AOCs, which have not been material to its financial position or results of operations in previous financial periods or on a cumulative basis.

Separately, the EPA has issued and is reviewing comments on its proposed plan for remediating the lower eight miles of the River, which is supported by a Focused Feasibility Study (the "FFS"). The FFS provides multiple approaches to remediation, which range in cost from $360.0 million to $3.25 billion, with the cost of the EPA-recommended approach ranging from $950.0 million to $1.73 billion. It cannot be determined how any costs of remediation identified as a result of the FFS would be allocated among any of the potentially responsible parties.

The Remedial Investigation ("RI") portion of the RI/FS was submitted to the EPA on February 19, 2015. On April 30, 2015, the CPG submitted the Feasibility Study (the "FS") portion of the RI/FS to the EPA. The FS presented and evaluated four remedial alternatives, including the approach recommended by the EPA in the FFS, and recommended an alternative approach for a targeted remediation of the entire 17-mile stretch of the River. The estimated cost of the approach recommended by the CPG in the FS is approximately $483.0 million . The Company expects that the RI and FS will be reviewed and subject to comment by the EPA and other governmental agencies and stakeholders. Ultimately, the Company expects that the EPA will, after this review and review of the comments received on the FFS, identify and negotiate with any or all of the potentially responsible parties regarding any remediation action that may be necessary, and issue a Record of Decision with a proposed remediation approach.

Until one or more Records of Decision are issued, neither the ultimate remedial approaches and their costs, nor the Company's participation, if any, relative to the other potentially responsible parties in these approaches and costs, can be determined. As such, the Company's obligations, if any, beyond those already recorded for the 2007 AOC and the Mile 10.9 AOC cannot be determined at this time, and the Company has therefore not recorded any additional liability related to this matter. In light of the number of companies that are Potentially Responsible Parties, which includes, but goes well beyond, those in the CPG that participated in the 2007 AOC and the Mile 10.9 AOC, and the Company's relative participation in the costs related thereto, the Company does not expect that its ultimate liability, if any, related to these matters will be material to its financial position. However, it is possible that, when the uncertainties discussed above are resolved, such liability could be material to its results of operations or cash flows in the period in which such uncertainties are resolved.

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss

Additions to and reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive loss are as follows:

Share Repurchase Program. In March 2014, the Company's Board of Directors approved a share repurchase program which authorizes the Company to repurchase up to $300.0 million of its Common Stock through open market transactions. Purchases are executed under a written plan for trading securities as specified under Rule 10b5-1 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the terms of which are within the Company's discretion, subject to applicable securities laws, and are based on market conditions and the Company's liquidity needs. The program will expire on March 31, 2017.

The Company's share repurchase activity was as follows:

At October 31, 2015 , $156.7 million remained available for share repurchases under this authorization.

Cash Dividends. The Company's Board of Directors declared quarterly dividends of $0.40 and $0.38 per share of Common Stock in the three months ended October 31, 2015 and 2014 and $1.18 and $1.10 per share of Common Stock in the nine months ended October 31, 2015 and 2014 .

The Company maintains several pension and retirement plans, and also provides certain health-care and life insurance benefits.

Net periodic pension and other postretirement benefit expense included the following components:

The Company's reportable segments are as follows:

Certain information relating to the Company's segments is set forth below:

The following table sets forth a reconciliation of the segments' earnings from operations to the Company's consolidated earnings from operations before income taxes: