(Mark One)

For the quarterly period ended October 31, 2017

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, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer," "smaller reporting company" and "emerging growth company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) 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

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date: Common Stock, $0.01 par value, 124,277,409 shares outstanding at the close of business on October 31, 2017 .

TIFFANY & CO. AND SUBSIDIARIES

INDEX TO FORM 10-Q

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2017

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, 2017 and 2016 and the results of its operations and cash flows for the interim periods presented. The condensed consolidated balance sheet data for January 31, 2017 are 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, 2017 and 2016 are not necessarily indicative of the results of the entire fiscal year.

Recently Issued Accounting Standards

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: Deferral of the Effective Date , deferring the effective date of ASU 2014-09 for one year to interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is also permitted as of the original effective date (interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016) and full or modified retrospective application is permitted. Subsequently, the FASB has issued a number of ASU's amending ASU 2014-09 and providing further guidance related to revenue recognition, which management continues to evaluate. The effective date and transition requirements for these amendments are the same as ASU 2014-09, as amended by ASU 2015-14. Management is currently finalizing its assessment of the impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements. During the course of this assessment, management has considered the following:

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02 –  Leases , which requires an entity that leases assets to recognize on the balance sheet the assets and liabilities for the rights and obligations created by those leases. Leases will be classified as either financing or operating, similar to current accounting requirements, with the applicable classification determining the pattern of expense recognition in the statement of earnings. This ASU is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2018 and must be adopted using a modified retrospective approach. Management continues to evaluate the impact of this ASU on the consolidated financial statements, but expects that adoption will result in a significant increase in the Company's assets and liabilities. The Company's implementation project team has completed the assessment phase of the project, during which the project team compiled information to evaluate the Company's real estate, personal property and other arrangements that may meet the definition of a lease under this ASU and identified areas that may require the development of additional processes and policies. The Company's implementation project team has begun the solution development phase of the project, during which it will develop and implement any such additional processes and policies, collect key data for each leased asset to be utilized throughout this phase of the project and select the practical expedients permitted under the ASU.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13 – Financial Instruments – Credit Losses: Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments . ASU 2016-13 amends the impairment model to utilize an expected loss methodology in place of the currently used incurred loss methodology, which will result in more timely recognition of losses. The new standard applies to financial assets measured at amortized cost basis, including receivables that result from revenue transactions and held-to-maturity debt securities. The ASU is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2019, and early adoption is permitted for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018. Management continues to evaluate the impact of this ASU on the consolidated financial statements.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-15 – Statement of Cash Flows: Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments , which provides guidance on eight specific cash flow issues in an effort to reduce diversity in practice in how certain transactions are classified within the statement of cash flows. This ASU is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted and the amendments should be applied using a retrospective method. Management continues to evaluate the impact of this ASU on the consolidated financial statements.

In October 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-16 – Income Taxes: Intra-Entity Transfers of Assets Other Than Inventory . This ASU eliminates the requirement to defer the recognition of current and deferred income taxes for an intra-entity asset transfer until the asset has been sold to an outside party. Therefore, under the new guidance, an entity should recognize the income tax consequences of an intra-entity transfer of an asset other than inventory when the transfer occurs. This ASU is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted as of the first interim period and the amendments should be applied on a modified retrospective basis

through a cumulative-effect adjustment directly to retained earnings as of the beginning of the period of adoption. This ASU is not expected to have a significant impact on the consolidated financial statements.

In March 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-07 – Compensation – Retirement Benefits: Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost . Under this ASU, only the service cost component of the net periodic benefit cost will be presented in the same income statement line item as other employee compensation costs arising from services rendered during the period, while the non-service cost components of net periodic benefit cost are required to be presented in the income statement separate from Earnings from operations. In addition, only the service cost component will be eligible for capitalization in assets. This ASU is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. The amendments in this ASU will be applied retrospectively for the presentation of the components of net periodic benefit cost other than service cost in the statement of earnings, and prospectively for the capitalization of the service cost component. Management will adopt this ASU beginning on February 1, 2018. This ASU will be applied retrospectively using the practical expedient permitted by this ASU and will require the reclassification of the non-service cost components of the net periodic benefit cost from within Earnings from operations to Interest and other expenses, net. This will increase Earnings from operations for the three and nine months ended October 31, 2017 and the year ended January 31, 2017 by $3.7 million , $11.0 million and $25.2 million , respectively, but will have no impact on Net earnings for those periods. The requirement set forth under this ASU that allows only the service cost component of net periodic benefit cost to be capitalized is not expected to have a significant impact on the Company's results of operations.

In May 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-09 – Compensation–Stock Compensation: Scope of Modification Accounting , clarifying when a change to the terms or conditions of a share-based payment award must be accounted for as a modification. The new guidance requires modification accounting if the fair value, vesting condition or the classification of the award is not the same immediately before and after a change to the terms and conditions of the award. This ASU is effective prospectively for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, with early adoption permitted. Accordingly, management will apply this ASU prospectively to any share-based payment awards modified on or after its February 1, 2018 effective date.

In August 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-12 – Derivatives and Hedging: Targeted Improvements to Accounting for Hedging Activities , which expands and refines hedge accounting for both financial and non-financial risk components, aligns the recognition and presentation of the effects of hedging instruments and hedged items in the financial statements, and includes certain targeted improvements to ease the application of current guidance related to the assessment of hedge effectiveness. This ASU is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, and interim periods within those fiscal years, with early adoption permitted. The amendments in this ASU should be applied on a modified retrospective basis, while presentation and disclosure requirements set forth under this ASU are required prospectively in all interim periods and fiscal years ending after the date of adoption. Management is currently evaluating the impact of this ASU on the consolidated financial statements. The simplifications to the application of hedge accounting may result in management expanding its use of hedge accounting in future periods.

Recently Adopted Accounting Standards

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-09 – Compensation – Stock Compensation: Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting , which provides guidance on several aspects of accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the accounting for income taxes, forfeitures, and statutory tax withholding requirements, as well as classification in the statement of cash flows. The Company adopted this ASU beginning on February 1, 2017 as follows:

This amount may not be indicative of future amounts that may be recognized, as any excess tax benefits and/or shortfalls recognized in future periods will be dependent on future stock price, employee exercise behavior and applicable tax rates. Prior to February 1, 2017, excess tax benefits were recognized in stockholders' equity.

Receivables. The Company's accounts receivable, net primarily consists of amounts due from Credit Receivables (defined below), department store operators that host TIFFANY & CO. boutiques in their stores, third-party credit card issuers and wholesale customers. 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 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. Certain customers may be granted payment terms which permit purchases above a minimum amount to be paid for in equal monthly installments over a period not to exceed 12 months (together with Credit Card Receivables, "Credit Receivables"). Credit Receivables require minimum balance payments. An 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. In order for the account to return to current status, full payment on all past due amounts needs to be received by the Company. For all Credit 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, 2017 and 2016 , the carrying amount of the Credit Receivables (recorded in accounts receivable, net) was $62.6 million and $71.2 million, of which 95% and 96% were considered current in the respective periods. The allowance for doubtful accounts for estimated losses associated with the Credit Receivables ( $1.2 million at October 31, 2017 and $1.1 million at October 31, 2016 ) 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, 2017 and 2016 , the current portion of the carrying amount of financing arrangements including accrued interest was $1.5 million and $2.3 million, respectively, and was recorded in prepaid expenses and other current assets. At October 31, 2017 and 2016 , the non-current portion of the net carrying amount of financing arrangements including accrued interest was $2.3 million and $19.7 million, respectively, and was included in other assets, net.

As of January 31, 2017, the Company had a  $43.8 million  loan receivable under a financing arrangement (the "Loan") with Koidu Limited (previously Koidu Holdings S.A.) ("Koidu"). The Company recorded an impairment charge of $4.2 million during the fiscal year ended January 31, 2017 related to the Loan, resulting in a net carrying amount of $1.7 million as of January 31, 2017 compared with $5.9 million as of October 31, 2016. During the three months ended April 30, 2017, the Company sold its interest in the Loan to Koidu's largest creditor for $1.7 million . Additionally, the Company and Koidu entered into an agreement to terminate the supply agreement between the parties, pursuant to which Laurelton Diamonds, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, had previously been required to purchase at fair market value certain diamonds recovered from the mine operated by Koidu that met Laurelton's quality standards.

The Company also recorded an impairment charge, and a related valuation allowance, of $8.4 million during the fiscal year ended January 31, 2017 related to a separate financing arrangement with another diamond mining and exploration company.

Management has not recorded any impairment charges on such loans in the three and nine months ended October 31, 2017 and 2016 .

The effective income tax rate for the three months ended October 31, 2017 was 33.4% versus 34.6% in the prior year. The effective income tax rate for the nine months ended October 31, 2017 was 32.9% versus 33.0% in the prior year. The effective income tax rate for the three and nine months ended October 31, 2017 was reduced by 250 basis points and 80 basis points, respectively, as a result of the true-up of the Company's prior year tax provision in conjunction with the filing of its 2016 tax returns, partly offset by an increase of 80 basis points and 30 basis points, respectively, due to the impact of a change in federal tax legislation. Additionally, the effective income tax rate for the nine months ended October 31, 2017 was reduced by 80 basis points due to an income tax benefit of $3.5 million resulting from the implementation of ASU 2016-09, which now requires excess tax benefits and/or shortfalls related to exercises and vesting of share-based compensation to be recorded in the provision for income taxes, rather than in additional paid in capital. The effective income tax rate for the nine months ended October 31, 2016 included a decrease of 150 basis points due to an income tax benefit of $6.6 million resulting from the conclusion of a tax examination during the three months ended April 30, 2016.

During the three months ended October 31, 2017 and 2016 and  nine months ended October 31, 2017 , the change in the gross amount of unrecognized tax benefits and change in accrued interest and penalties was not significant. During the nine months ended October 31, 2016, the Company's gross uncertain tax positions decreased by  $6.8 million  and gross accrued interest and penalties were unchanged, primarily as a result of the conclusion of a tax examination during the three months ended April 30, 2016.

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. Ongoing audits where subsidiaries have a material presence include New York City (tax

years 2011 - 2013 ) and New York State (tax years 2012 - 2014 ). Tax years from 2010 -present are open to examination in the U.S. Federal jurisdiction and 2006 -present are open to examination in various state, local and foreign jurisdictions. As part of these audits, the Company engages in discussions with taxing authorities regarding tax positions. As of October 31, 2017 , unrecognized tax benefits are not expected to change materially 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 months ended October 31, 2017 and 2016 , there were 0.4 million and 1.2 million, respectively, stock options and restricted stock units excluded from the computations of earnings per diluted share due to their antidilutive effect. For the nine months ended October 31, 2017 and 2016 , there were 0.7 million and 1.4 million, respectively, stock options and restricted stock units excluded from the computations of earnings per diluted share due to their antidilutive effect.

Commercial Paper

In August 2017, the Registrant and one of its wholly owned subsidiaries established a commercial paper program (the "Commercial Paper Program") for the issuance of commercial paper in the form of short-term promissory notes in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $750.0 million . Borrowings under the Commercial Paper Program will be used for general corporate purposes. The aggregate amount of borrowings that the Company is currently authorized to have outstanding under the Commercial Paper Program and the Registrant's four-year $375.0 million and five-year $375.0 million multi-bank, multi-currency, committed unsecured revolving credit facilities is $750.0 million . The Registrant guarantees the obligations of its wholly owned subsidiary under the Commercial Paper Program. Maturities of commercial paper notes may vary, but cannot exceed 397 days from the date of issuance. Notes issued under the Commercial Paper Program will rank equally with the Registrant's present and future unsecured and unsubordinated indebtedness. As of October 31, 2017, there were $43.0 million of borrowings outstanding under the Commercial Paper Program with a weighted average interest rate of 1.28% .

Senior Notes

In August 2016, the Registrant issued ¥10.0 billion ( $88.3 million at October 31, 2017 ) of 0.78% Senior Notes due August 2026 (the "Notes") in a private transaction. The proceeds from the issuance of the Notes were used to repay the Registrant's ¥10.0 billion 1.72% Senior Notes due September 2016 upon the maturity thereof. The Notes bear interest at a rate of 0.78% per annum, payable semi-annually on February 26 and August 26 of each year, commencing February 26, 2017. The Registrant may redeem all or part of the Notes upon not less than 30 nor more than 60 days' prior notice at a redemption price equal to the sum of (i) 100% of the principal amount of the Notes to be redeemed,

plus (ii) accrued and unpaid interest, if any, on those Notes to the redemption date, plus (iii) a make-whole premium as of the redemption date.

There have been no material changes to the agreements governing the Credit Facilities or Senior Notes referenced in the table above since January 31, 2017.

At October 31, 2017 , the Company was in compliance with all debt covenants.

Background Information

The Company uses derivative financial instruments, including interest rate swaps, cross-currency swaps, forward contracts, put option contracts and net-zero-cost collar arrangements (combination of call and put option contracts) to mitigate a portion of its exposures to changes in interest rates, foreign currency and precious metal prices.

Derivative Instruments Designated as Hedging Instruments . If a derivative instrument meets certain hedge accounting criteria, it is recorded on the consolidated balance sheet at its fair value, as either an asset or a liability, with an offset to current or comprehensive earnings, depending on whether the hedge is designated as one of the following on the date it is entered into:

• Fair Value Hedge – A hedge of the exposure to changes in the fair value of a recognized asset or liability or an unrecognized firm commitment. For fair value hedge transactions, both the effective and ineffective portions of the changes in the fair value of the derivative and changes in the fair value of the item being hedged are recorded in current earnings.

• Cash Flow Hedge – A hedge of the exposure to variability in the cash flows of a recognized asset, liability or a forecasted transaction. For cash flow hedge transactions, the effective portion of the changes in fair value of derivatives is reported as other comprehensive income ("OCI") and is recognized in current earnings in the period or periods during which the hedged transaction affects current earnings. Amounts excluded from the effectiveness calculation and any ineffective portions of the change in fair value of the derivative are recognized in current earnings.

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.

Derivative Instruments Not Designated as Hedging Instruments. Derivative instruments which do not meet the criteria to be designated as a hedge are recorded on the consolidated balance sheet at their fair values, as either assets or liabilities, with an offset to current earnings. The gains or losses on undesignated foreign exchange forward contracts substantially offset foreign exchange losses or gains on the underlying liabilities or transactions being hedged.

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. As of October 31, 2017 , $18.8 million remains recorded as an unrealized loss in accumulated other comprehensive loss, which is being amortized over the term of the 2042 Notes to which the interest rate swaps related.

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. The Company settled the interest rate swap in 2014 and recorded an unrealized loss within accumulated other comprehensive loss. As of October 31, 2017 , $3.7 million remains recorded as an unrealized loss and is being amortized over the terms of the respective 2024 Notes or 2044 Notes to which the interest rate swaps related.

Cross-currency Swaps  – In 2016 and 2017, the Company entered into cross-currency swaps to hedge the foreign exchange risk associated with Japanese yen-denominated intercompany loans. These cross-currency swaps are designated and accounted for as cash flow hedges. As of October 31, 2017 , the notional amounts of cross-currency swaps accounted for as cash flow hedges and the respective maturity dates were as follows:

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, 2017 , the notional amounts of foreign exchange forward contracts were as follows:

The maximum term of the Company's outstanding foreign exchange forward contracts as of October 31, 2017 is 12 months.

Precious Metal Collars and Forward Contracts – The Company periodically hedges a portion of its forecasted purchases of precious metals for use in its internal manufacturing operations in order to manage the effect of volatility in precious metal prices. The Company may use either a combination of call and put option contracts in net-zero-cost collar arrangements ("precious metal collars") or forward contracts. For precious metal collars, if the price of the precious metal at the time of the expiration of the precious metal collar is within the call and put price, the precious metal collar expires at no cost to the Company. The Company accounts for its precious metal collars and forward contracts as cash flow hedges. The Company assesses hedge effectiveness based on the total changes in the precious metal collars and forward contracts' cash flows. As of October 31, 2017 , the maximum term over which the Company is hedging its exposure to the variability of future cash flows for all forecasted precious metals transactions is 18 months. As of October 31, 2017 , there were precious metal derivative instruments outstanding for 54,000 ounces of platinum, 1,080,000 ounces of silver and 40,000 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 pre-tax gains (losses) on derivatives not designated as hedging instruments for the three and nine months ended October 31, 2017 were $2.3 million and $(0.2) million, respectively, and were included in interest and other expenses, net. The Company had pre-tax losses of $2.2 million and $9.8 million on such instruments in the three and nine months ended October 31, 2016 , respectively. There was no material ineffectiveness related to the Company's hedging instruments for the three and nine months ended October 31, 2017 and 2016 . The Company estimates that $5.4 million of net pre-tax derivative gains included in accumulated other comprehensive loss at October 31, 2017 will be reclassified into earnings within the next 12 months. The actual amount reclassified 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 (an investment grade credit rating 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, which are considered to be most reliable.

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, which require the most judgment.

The Company's derivative instruments are considered Level 2 instruments for the purposes of determining fair value. The Company's foreign exchange forward contracts, as well as its put option contracts and cross-currency swaps, are primarily valued using the appropriate foreign exchange spot rates. The Company's precious metal forward contracts and collars are primarily valued using the relevant precious metal spot rate. The Company's interest rate swaps were primarily valued using the 3-month LIBOR 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, 2017 are classified in the table below in one of the three categories described above: 

Financial assets and liabilities carried at fair value at January 31, 2017 are classified in the table below in one of the three categories described above: 

Financial assets and liabilities carried at fair value at October 31, 2016 are classified in the table below in one of the three categories described above:

The fair values of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued liabilities approximate carrying value due to the short-term maturities of these assets and liabilities and as such are 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, current portion of long-term debt and long-term debt was $1.1 billion and the corresponding fair value was approximately $1.1 billion at October 31, 2017 , January 31, 2017 and October 31, 2016 .

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 $73.0 million at October 31, 2017 ) (based on its alleged wasted investment) to CHF 3.8 billion (or approximately $3.8 billion at October 31, 2017 ) (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, 2017 ) (based on its wasted investment) to approximately CHF 540.0 million (or approximately $543.0 million at October 31, 2017 ) (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 was set aside. However, the Swatch Parties took action in the Dutch courts to appeal the District Court's decision, and a three-judge panel of the Appellate Court of Amsterdam presided over an appellate hearing in respect of the annulment, and the related claim by the Tiffany Parties for the return of the Arbitration Damages and related costs, on June 29, 2016. The Appellate Court issued its decision on April 25, 2017, finding in favor of the Swatch Parties and ordering the Tiffany Parties to reimburse the Swatch Parties EUR 6,340 in legal costs. The Tiffany Parties have taken action to appeal the decision of the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. As such, the Arbitration Award may ultimately be set aside by the Supreme Court. Registrant's management expects that the annulment action will not be ultimately resolved until, at the earliest, Registrant's fiscal year ending January 31, 2019.

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.

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 a 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.

Management has not established any accrual in the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements for the quarter ended October 31, 2017 related to the annulment process or any potential subsequent litigation because it does not believe that the final annulment of the Arbitration Award by the Supreme Court and a subsequent award of damages exceeding the Arbitration Damages is probable.

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 such as those 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.

Gain Contingency.  On February 14, 2013, Tiffany and Company and Tiffany (NJ) LLC (collectively, the "Tiffany plaintiffs") initiated a lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corp. ("Costco") for trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, trademark dilution and trademark counterfeiting (the "Costco Litigation"). The Tiffany plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, monetary recovery and statutory damages on account of Costco's use of "Tiffany" on signs in the jewelry cases at Costco stores used to describe certain diamond engagement rings that were not manufactured by Tiffany. Costco filed a counterclaim arguing that the TIFFANY trademark was a generic term for multi-pronged ring settings and seeking to have the trademark invalidated, modified or partially canceled in that respect. On September 8, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") granted the Tiffany plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment of liability in its entirety, dismissing Costco's genericism counterclaim and finding that Costco was liable for trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting and unfair competition under New York law in its use of "Tiffany" on the above-referenced signs. On September 29, 2016, a civil jury rendered its verdict, finding that Costco's profits on the sale of the infringing rings should be awarded at $5.5 million , and further finding that an award of punitive damages was warranted. On October 5, 2016, the jury awarded $8.25 million in punitive damages. The aggregate award of $13.75 million  was not final, as it was subject to post-verdict motion practice and ultimately to adjustment by the Court. On August 14, 2017, the Court issued its ruling, finding that the Tiffany plaintiffs are entitled to recover (i) $11.1 million in respect of Costco's profits on the sale of the infringing rings (which amount is three times the amount of such profits, as determined by the Court), (ii) prejudgment interest on such amount (calculated at the applicable statutory rate) from February 15, 2013 through August 14, 2017, (iii) an additional $8.25 million in punitive damages, and (iv) Tiffany's reasonable attorneys' fees (which will be determined at a later date), and, on August 24, 2017, the Court entered judgment in the amount of $21.0 million in favor of the Tiffany plaintiffs (reflecting items (i) through (iii) above). Costco has filed an appeal from the judgment, as well as a motion in the Court for a new trial. The appeal has been automatically stayed pending determination of the Court motion. Costco has also filed an appeal bond to secure the amount of the judgment entered by the Court pending appeal, so the Tiffany plaintiffs will be unable to enforce the judgment while the motion for a new trial and the appeal are pending. As such, the Company has not recorded any amount in its consolidated financial statements related to this gain contingency as of October 31, 2017 , and expects that this matter will not ultimately be resolved until, at the earliest, the Company's fiscal year ending January 31, 2019.

Environmental Matter. In 2005, the U.S. 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 and may also enter into settlement agreements pursuant to an allocation process.

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), the Remedial Investigation ("RI") portion of the RI/FS was submitted to the EPA on February 19, 2015, and the Feasibility Study ("FS") portion of the RI/FS was submitted to the EPA on April 30, 2015. The Company nonetheless remained in the CPG until October 24, 2017. 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.

The FS presented and evaluated three options for remediating the lower 17 miles of the River, including the approach recommended by the EPA in its Focused Feasibility Study discussed below, as well as a fourth option of taking no action, and recommended an 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 RI and FS are being reviewed by the EPA and other governmental agencies and stakeholders. Ultimately, the Company expects that the EPA will 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 approach to remediating the entire lower 17-mile stretch of the River.

Separately, on April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a proposed plan for remediating the lower eight miles of the River, which is supported by a Focused Feasibility Study (the "FFS"). The FFS evaluated three remediation options, as well as a fourth option of taking no action. Following a public review and comment period and the EPA's review of comments received, the EPA issued a Record of Decision on March 4, 2016 that set forth a remediation plan for the lower eight miles of the River (the "RoD Remediation"). The RoD Remediation is estimated by the EPA to cost  $1.38 billion . The Record of Decision did not identify any party or parties as being responsible for the design of the remediation or for the remediation itself. The EPA did note that it estimates the design of the necessary remediation activities will take three to four years, with the remediation to follow, which is estimated to take an additional six years to complete.

On March 31, 2016, the EPA issued a letter to approximately 100 companies (including the Company) (collectively, the "notified companies") notifying them of potential liability for the RoD Remediation and of the EPA's planned approach to addressing the cost of the RoD Remediation, which included the possibility of a de-minimis cash-out settlement (the "settlement option") for certain parties. In April of 2016, the Company notified the EPA of its interest in pursuing the settlement option, and accordingly recorded an immaterial liability representing its best estimate of its minimum liability for the RoD Remediation, which reflects the possibility of a de-minimis settlement. On March 30, 2017, the EPA issued offers related to the settlement option to 20 parties; while the Company was not one of the parties receiving such an offer, the EPA has indicated that the settlement option may be made available to additional parties beyond those notified on March 30, 2017. Although the EPA must determine which additional parties are eligible for the settlement option, the Company does not expect any settlement amount that it might agree with the EPA to be material to its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Unrelated to the settlement option, the EPA also announced, in October 2016, that it entered into a legal agreement with one of the notified companies, pursuant to which such company agreed to spend $165.0 million to perform the engineering and design work required in advance of the clean-up contemplated by the RoD Remediation (the "RoD Design Phase"). That company has waived any rights to collect contribution for those costs from the Company.

In the absence of a viable settlement option, the Company is unable to determine its participation in the overall RoD Remediation (of which the RoD Design Phase is only a part), if any, relative to the other potentially responsible parties or the allocation of the estimated cost thereof among the potentially responsible parties, until such time as the EPA reaches an agreement with any potentially responsible party or parties to fund the overall RoD Remediation (or pursues legal or administrative action to require any potentially responsible party or parties to perform, or pay for, the overall RoD Remediation). With respect to the RI/FS (which is distinct from the RoD Remediation), until a Record of Decision is issued with respect to the RI/FS, neither the ultimate remedial approach for the remaining upper nine miles of the relevant 17-mile stretch of the River and its cost, nor the Company's participation, if any, relative to the other potentially responsible parties in this approach and cost, can be determined.

As such, the Company's liability, if any, beyond that already recorded for (1) its obligations under the 2007 AOC and the Mile 10.9 AOC, and (2) its estimate related to a de-minimis cash-out settlement for the RoD Remediation, cannot be determined at this time. However, the Company does not expect that its ultimate liability related to the relevant 17-mile stretch of the River will be material to its financial position, in light of the number of companies that have previously been identified as Potentially Responsible Parties (i.e., the more than 300 parties that were initially designated in litigation as potentially responsible parties), which includes, but goes well beyond those approximately 70 CPG member companies that participated in the 2007 AOC and the Mile 10.9 AOC, and the Company's relative participation in the costs related to the 2007 AOC and Mile 10.9 AOC. It is nonetheless possible that any resulting liability when the uncertainties discussed above are resolved could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows in the period in which such uncertainties are resolved.

Other Regulatory Matters. The Company is subject to regulations in various jurisdictions in which the Company operates, including those related to the sale of consumer products. During the Company's regular internal quality testing, the Company identified a potential breach of its sourcing and quality standards applicable to third party vendors. The Company assessed the composition of certain of its gold products manufactured primarily by certain U.S. third-party vendors, which contain gold solder manufactured by other U.S. vendors, to determine whether such products were in compliance with applicable consumer products requirements and regulations. Following this assessment, management determined that no liability was required to be recorded.

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss

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