13.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Contract Termination Costs

As of September 30, 2011, the minimum payments remaining under the Company's lease relating to its reconsidered corporate relocation over the years ending December 31, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 are $0.4 million, $1.6 million, $1.7 million, $1.7 million and $1.7 million, respectively, and $6.3 million thereafter. The minimum receipts remaining under the Company's existing subleases over the years ending December 31, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 are $0.4 million, $1.6 million, $1.3 million, and $1.0 million, respectively, and $0.0 thereafter. The Company accounts for the costs associated with the lease as contract termination costs. During the three months ended September 30, 2011, the Company entered into an agreement to terminate a portion of the lease.

The following table provides information about the Company's liability related to the lease (in thousands):


	2011			2010
Balance as of January 1	$	567		$	485
Less: net rental receipts (payments)		(107	)		(164	)
Accretion of discount		34			32
Increase in estimated contract termination costs		—			225

Balance as of September 30	$	494		$	578

Product Warranty

The Company warrants that its products will be free from material defects in workmanship and material and will not check, split, splinter, rot or suffer structural damage from termites or fungal decay. With respect to the Company's new Transcend product, the Company further warrants that the product will not fade in color more than a certain amount and will be resistant to permanent staining from food substances or mold (provided the stain is cleaned within seven days of appearance). Each of these warranties generally extends for a period of 25 years for residential use and 10 years for commercial use. If there is a breach of such warranties, the Company has an obligation either to replace the defective product or refund the purchase price. The Company establishes warranty reserves to provide for estimated future expenses as a result of product defects that result in claims. Reserve estimates are based on management's judgment, considering such factors as historical experience and other available information. Management reviews and adjusts these estimates, if necessary, on a quarterly basis based on the differences between actual experience and historical estimates.

The Company continues to receive and settle claims related to material produced at its Nevada facility through mid-2006 that exhibits surface flaking and regularly monitors the adequacy of the remaining warranty reserve. If the level of future claims exceeds the Company's expectations, it could result in additional increases to the warranty reserve and reduced earnings in future periods. The Company estimates that a 10% change in the expected number of remaining claims or the expected cost to settle claims may result in approximately a $0.9 million change in the warranty reserve.

The following is a reconciliation of the Company's warranty reserve (in thousands):


	2011			2010
Beginning balance, January 1	$	14,472		$	11,524
Provision for estimated warranties		—			9,765
Settlements made during the period		(5,949	)		(9,379	)

Ending balance, September 30	$	8,523		$	11,910

Legal Matters

As reported in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, on January 19, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Santa Cruz County, by the lead law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and certain other law firms (the "Lieff Cabraser Group") on behalf of Eric Ross and Bradley S. Hureth and similarly situated plaintiffs. These plaintiffs generally allege certain defects in the Company's products, and that the Company has failed to provide adequate remedies for defective products. On February 13, 2009, the Company removed this case to the United States District Court, Northern District of California. On January 21, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced against the Company in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington by the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (the "Hagens Berman Firm") on behalf of Mark Okano and similarly situated plaintiffs, generally alleging certain product defects in the Company's products, and that the Company has failed to provide adequate remedies for defective products. This case was transferred by the Washington Court to the California Court as a related case to the Lieff Cabraser Group's case.

On July 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved a settlement of the claims of the lawsuit commenced by the Lieff Cabraser Group involving surface flaking of the Company's product, and on March 15, 2010, it granted final approval of the settlement. On April 14, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm filed a notice to appeal the District Court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On July 9, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm dismissed their appeal, effectively making the settlement final.

On March 25, 2010, the Lieff Cabraser Group amended its complaint to add claims relating to alleged defects in the Company's products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth. The Hagens Berman firm has alleged similar claims in its original complaint. In its Final Order approving the surface flaking settlement, the District Court consolidated the two pending actions relating to the mold claims, and appointed the Hagens Berman Firm as lead counsel in this case. The Company believes that these claims are without merit, and will vigorously defend this lawsuit.

On December 15, 2010, a purported class action case was commenced against the Company in the United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky, by the lead law firm of Cohen & Malad, LLP ("Cohen & Malad") on behalf of Richard Levin and similarly situated plaintiffs, and on June 13, 2011, a purported class action was commenced against the Company in the Marion Circuit/Superior Court of Indiana by Cohen & Malad on behalf of Ellen Kopetsky and similarly situated plaintiffs. On June 28, 2011, the Company removed the Kopetsky case to the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana. On August 11, 2011, a purported class action was commenced against the Company in the 50^th Circuit Court for the County of Chippewa, Michigan on behalf of Joel and Lori Peffers and similarly situated plaintiffs. On August 26, 2011, the Company removed the Peffers case to the United States District Court, Western District of Michigan. The plaintiffs in these purported class actions generally allege certain defects in the Company's products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth. The Company believes that these claims are without merit, and will vigorously defend these lawsuits.

The Company has other lawsuits, as well as other claims, pending against it which are ordinary routine litigation and claims incidental to the business. Management has evaluated the merits of these other lawsuits and claims, and believes that their ultimate resolution will not have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or competitive position.