COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Various claims and lawsuits arising in the normal course of business are pending against the Company. The Company accrues a liability for such matters when it is probable that a liability exists and the amount of such liability can be reasonably estimated. When only a range can be estimated, the most probable amount in the range is accrued unless no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, in which case the minimum amount in the range is accrued. Legal costs associated with litigation loss contingencies are expensed in the period in which they are incurred. The Company does not expect, in the case of those various claims and lawsuits arising in the normal course of business where a loss is considered probable or reasonably possible, that the reasonably possible losses from such claims and lawsuits (either individually or in the aggregate) would have a material adverse effect on the Companys consolidated financial position or results of operations. On June 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. et. al., reversing prior precedent, in particular Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992), which held that states could not constitutionally require retailers to collect and remit sales or use taxes in respect to mail order or internet sales made to residents of a state in the absence of the retailer having a physical presence in the taxing state. As a result, the Company will now have an obligation, at least on a go forward basis, based on each state's enforcement date, to collect and remit sales and use taxes, primarily in respect to sales made through its school book clubs channel, as well as certain sales made through its ecommerce internet sites, to residents in states that the Company has not previously remitted sales or use taxes based on it having no physical presence in such states. In the majority opinion, several factors were discussed in support of the Courts reasoning that the collection of sales and use taxes from out-of-state retailers did not constitute an undue burden on interstate commerce, including the fact that South Dakota did not require retroactive application of its statute. However, the question of retroactive application, as well as certain other factors noted in the opinion, will be subject to how the states, on a state-by-state basis, interpret and apply the Courts decision in their implementation of their respective state laws or regulations addressing the collection of sales and use taxes from out-of-state retailers. As a result, how the decision will affect the Company will depend on the positions taken by the states, on a state-by-state basis, relating to the retroactive application of the obligation to collect such taxes, as well as other factors noted in the opinion. The Company has taken steps towards compliance based on anticipated enforcement dates and an assumption as to each state's likely interpretation and application of the Court's decision. As the Company continues to monitor each state, the staggered enforcement dates, and the progress towards compliance, expenses could be incurred by the Company. As of August 31, 2018, the Company has not recorded significant expenses related to the Court's decision. As of August 31, 2018, the Companys school book clubs channel remits sales taxes in eleven states. Any on-going or future litigation with states relating to sales and use taxes could be impacted favorably or unfavorably by the legislation action in future fiscal periods. The State of Wisconsin has assessed Scholastic Book Fairs, Inc. (SBF), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, $5.4 , exclusive of penalties and interest, for sales tax in fiscal years 2003 through 2014. Based upon the facts and circumstances and the relevant laws in the State of Wisconsin, the Company does not believe these assessments are merited and has elected to litigate these assessments. While the Company believes it will prevail in this litigation and accordingly has not recognized a liability for these assessments, the results of litigation cannot be assured and it is reasonably possible that SBF could be found liable for all or a portion of the amounts assessed.