CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES We are a defendant in various proceedings involving employment, antitrust, intellectual property, environmental, taxation and other laws. When it is probable, in management’s judgment, that we may incur monetary damages or other costs resulting from these proceedings or other claims, and we can reasonably estimate the amounts, we record appropriate liabilities in the financial statements and make charges against earnings. For all periods presented, we have recorded no material charges against earnings, and the total liabilities recorded are not material to our financial position. Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit On August 10, 2010, a shareholder derivative suit was filed by the New England Carpenters Pension Fund in the Circuit Court of Jasper County, Missouri as Case No. 10AO-CC284. The suit was purportedly brought on our behalf, naming us as a nominal defendant, and certain current and former officers and directors as individual defendants including David S. Haffner, Karl G. Glassman, Matthew C. Flanigan, Ernest C. Jett, Harry M. Cornell, Jr., Felix E. Wright, Robert Ted Enloe, III, Richard T. Fisher, Judy C. Odom, Maurice E. Purnell, Jr., Ralph W. Clark and Michael A. Glauber. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the individual defendants: breached their fiduciary duties; backdated and received backdated stock options violating our stock plans; caused or allowed us to issue false and misleading financial statements and proxy statements; sold our stock while possessing material non-public information; committed gross mismanagement; wasted corporate assets; committed fraud; violated the Missouri Securities Act; and were unjustly enriched. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things: unspecified monetary damages against the individual defendants; certain equitable and other relief relating to the profits from the alleged improper conduct; the adoption of certain corporate governance proposals; the imposition of a constructive trust over the defendants’ stock options and proceeds; punitive damages; the rescission of certain unexercised options; and the reimbursement of litigation costs. The plaintiff is not seeking monetary relief from us. We have director and officer liability insurance in force subject to customary limits and exclusions. We and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the suit in late October 2010, asserting: the plaintiff failed to make demand on our Board and shareholders as required by Missouri law, and this failure to make demand should not be excused; the dismissal of the substantially similar suit in 2009 precludes the 2010 suit; the plaintiff is not a representative shareholder; the suit was based on a statistical analysis of stock option grants and our stock prices that we believe was flawed; the plaintiff failed to state a substantive claim; the common law fraud claim was not pled with sufficient particularity; and the statute of limitations has expired on the fraud claim and all the alleged challenged grants except the December 30, 2005 grant. As to this grant, the motions to dismiss advised the Court that it was made under our Deferred Compensation Program, which (i) provided that options would be dated on the last business day of December, and (ii) was filed with the SEC on December 2, 2005 setting out the pricing mechanism well before the grant date. On April 6, 2011, the suit was dismissed without prejudice. On May 12, 2011, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals. On November 28, 2012, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal finding that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded it would be futile to make demand on the Board and shareholders. The Court of Appeals did not address the other grounds that had been raised in the motions to dismiss. We filed a request for transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court on December 12, 2012, which was denied by the Court of Appeals. On January 3, 2013, we filed a transfer petition to the Missouri Supreme Court. On February 26, 2013, the Missouri Supreme Court denied our request. The case was sent back to Jasper County, Missouri for further proceedings. At the parties' request, on June 4, 2013, the circuit court stayed all proceedings to allow the parties to mediate the dispute. We do not expect that the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operating cash flows or results of operations. Antitrust Lawsuits Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits was initiated in several U.S. federal courts and in Canada against over 20 defendants alleging that competitors of our carpet underlay business unit and other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. and Canadian antitrust laws. A number of these lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, most without prejudice. Of the U.S. cases remaining, we have been named as a defendant in (a) three direct purchaser class action cases (the first on November 15, 2010) and a consolidated amended class action complaint on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products; (b) an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21, 2011; and an indirect purchaser class action case filed on May 23, 2011; (c) 38 individual direct purchaser cases filed between March 22, 2011 and June 20, 2013; and (d) two individual cases alleging direct and indirect purchaser claims under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, one filed on November 29, 2012 and the other on April 11, 2013. All of the pending U.S. federal cases in which we have been named as a defendant, have been filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. In the U.S. actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of unspecified damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against future violations. On April 15 and May 6, 2011, we filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct purchaser and indirect purchaser class actions in the consolidated case in Ohio, for failure to state a legally valid claim. On July 19, 2011, the Ohio Court denied the motions to dismiss. Discovery is underway in the U.S. actions. Motions for class certification have been filed on behalf of both direct and indirect purchasers. A hearing on the motions is expected to be held in December 2013. We have been named in two Canadian class action cases (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products), both under the name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited and Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et.al. in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-10-15164 (amended November 2, 2011) and CV-11-17279 (issued December 30, 2011). In each of the Canadian cases, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek from over 13 defendants restitution of the amount allegedly overcharged, general and special damages in the amount of $100, punitive damages of $10, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and the costs of the investigation and the action. We are not yet required to file our defenses in the Canadian actions. In addition, on July 10, 2012, plaintiff in a class action case (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products) styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. Produits Vitafoam Canada Limitée, et. al. in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice (Montréal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, filed an amended motion for authorization seeking to add us and other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products as defendants in this case. On June 22, 2012, we were also made party to a lawsuit brought in the 16^th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, Case Number 1216-CV15179 under the caption “Dennis Baker, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated vs. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated.” The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and/or a class of indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products in the State of Missouri, alleged that we violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based upon our alleged illegal price inflation of flexible polyurethane foam products. The plaintiff seeks unspecified actual damages, punitive damages and the recovery of reasonable attorney fees. We filed a motion to dismiss this action, which was denied on November 5, 2012. Discovery has commenced and plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification. We deny all of the allegations in all of the above actions and will vigorously defend ourselves. These contingencies are subject to many uncertainties. Therefore, based on the information available to date, we cannot estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any, because, at this juncture of the proceedings; discovery is incomplete (class certification issues are not yet ripe, all expert liability reports have not been exchanged); and because the litigation involves unsettled legal theories. Brazilian Value-Added Tax Matters On December 22, 2011, the Brazilian Finance Ministry, Federal Revenue Office issued a notice of violation against our wholly-owned subsidiary, Leggett & Platt do Brasil Ltda. (“L&P Brazil”) in the amount of approximately $3.3, under Case No. 10855.724660/2011-43. The Brazilian Revenue Office claimed that for the period beginning November 2006 and continuing through December 2007, L&P Brazil used an incorrect tariff code for the collection and payment of value-added tax primarily on the sale of mattress innerspring units in Brazil. L&P Brazil responded to the notice of violation on January 25, 2012 denying the violation. On December 17, 2012, the Brazilian Revenue Office issued an additional notice of violation in the amount of approximately $5.8 under MPF Case No. 0811000.2011.00438 covering the period from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010 on the same subject matter. L&P Brazil responded to the notice of violation on January 17, 2013 denying the violation. The Brazilian Revenue Office, on June 13, 2013, denied L&P Brazil's defenses and upheld the assessment at the first administrative level. L&P appealed this decision on July 8, 2013. It is possible that we may receive an additional notice of violation for years 2011 and 2012. In addition, L&P Brazil received assessments on December 22, 2011, and June 26, July 2 and November 5, 2012 from the Brazilian Revenue Office where the Revenue Office challenged L&P Brazil’s use of certain tax credits in the years 2006 through 2010. Such credits are generated based upon the tariff classification and rate used by L&P Brazil for value-added tax on the sale of mattress innersprings. Combined with prior assessments, L&P Brazil has received assessments totaling approximately $2.0 on the same or similar denial of tax credit matters. L&P Brazil is also party to a proceeding involving the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil where the State of Sao Paulo, on April 16, 2009, issued a Notice of Tax Assessment and Imposition of Fine to L&P Brazil seeking approximately $2.5 for the tax years 2006 and 2007, under Case No. 3.111.006 (DRT n°.04-256.169/2009). The State of Sao Paulo argued that L&P Brazil was using an incorrect tariff code for the collection and payment of value-added tax on sales of mattress innerspring units in the State of Sao Paulo. On September 29, 2010, the Court of Tax and Fees of the State of Sao Paulo ruled in favor of L&P Brazil nullifying the tax assessment. The State filed a special appeal and the Special Appeals court remanded the case back to the Court of Tax and Fees for further findings. On November 9, 2012, the Court of Tax and Fees again ruled in favor of L&P Brazil and nullified the tax assessment. On November 28, 2012, the State filed another special appeal. The determination to accept the special appeal was made on December 26, 2012, and L&P responded to this special appeal on January 24, 2013. We were also informed on October 4, 2012 that the State of Sao Paulo issued an Auto-Infringement and Imposition of a Fine dated May 29, 2012 under Procedure Number 4.003.484 against L&P Brazil in the amount of approximately $2.1 for the tax years 2009 through 2011. Similar to the prior assessment, the State of Sao Paulo argues that L&P Brazil was using an incorrect tax rate for the collection and payment of value-added tax on sales of mattress innerspring units in the State of Sao Paulo. On June 21, 2013, the State of Sao Paulo's attorneys converted the Auto-Infringement and Imposition of a Fine No. 4.003.484 to a fiscal execution action against L&P Brazil in the amount of approximately $2.8, under Sorocaba Judicial District Court, Case No. 3005528-50.2013.8.26.0602. L&P Brazil has yet to file its response, but intends to deny the allegations. On December 18, 2012, the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil issued a tax assessment to L&P Brazil relating to L&P Brazil's classifications of innersprings for the collection and payment of value-added tax on the sale of mattress innersprings in Minas Gerais from March 1, 2008 through August 31, 2012 in the amount of approximately $.6, under PTA Case No. 01.000.182756-62. L&P Brazil filed its response denying any violation on January 17, 2013. On February 1, 2013, the Brazilian Finance Ministry filed suit against L&P Brazil in the Camanducaia Judicial District Court, Case No. 0002222-35.2013.8.13.0878, alleging the untimely payment of $.2 of social contributions (social security and social assistance payments). L&P Brazil filed its response on July 11, 2013, denying the allegations. L&P Brazil argued the payments were not required to be made because of the application of certain tax credits that were generated by L&P Brazil's use of a tariff code for the classification of value-added tax on the sale of mattress innersprings (i.e., the same underlying issue at stake in the other Brazilian matters). We deny all of the allegations in these actions. We believe that we have valid bases upon which to contest such actions and will vigorously defend ourselves. However, these contingencies are subject to many uncertainties. At this time, we do not believe it is probable that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operating cash flows or results of operations. Patent Infringement Claim On January 24, 2012, in a case in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, a jury returned a verdict against us in the amount of $5 based upon an allegation by plaintiff that we infringed three patents on an automatic stapling machine and on methods used to assemble box springs. This action was originally filed on October 4, 2010, as case number CV10-7416 RGK (SSx) under the caption Imaginal Systematic, LLC v. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated; Simmons Bedding Company; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive. Leggett is contractually obligated to defend and indemnify Simmons Bedding Company against a claim for infringement. On summary judgment motions, we unsuccessfully disputed each patent’s validity and denied that we infringed any patent. At the jury trial on damages issues, the plaintiff alleged damages of $16.2. The court denied plaintiff’s attempt to win an attorney fee award and triple the pre-verdict damages. On April 9, 2012 we appealed the case to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on February 6, 2013 before a three judge appeal panel in the Federal Circuit in Washington D.C. On February 14, 2013, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment affirming the $5 verdict against us, which was fully accrued for in the first quarter of 2013 and then paid in the second quarter of 2013. We filed a petition for a rehearing of the Court of Appeals decision on March 18, 2013, which was denied by the Court of Appeals. The plaintiff requested royalties for post-verdict use of the machines, which to date approximate $2, and requested pre-judgment interest in the amount of $.7. On July 3, 2013, the District Court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to additional ongoing royalties for our continued use of the machines, but did award pre-judgment interest of approximately $.5. On August 2, 2013, both parties filed a notice of appeal of this order to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. We also filed reexamination proceedings in the Patent Office (Case Nos. 95/001,543 filed February 11, 2011; 95/001,546 and 95/001,547 filed February 16, 2011), challenging the validity of each patent at issue. The Patent Office examiner ruled in our favor on the pertinent claims of one of the three patents. The Patent Office examiner initially ruled in our favor on the pertinent claims of the second patent, but subsequently reversed that decision. With respect to the third patent, the Patent Office examiner's decision upheld the validity of all claims. All three of these proceedings were appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals. Due to a change made to all of the machines, we do not believe that the machines currently use the feature alleged to have infringed the third patent. On April 25, 2013, the plaintiff filed a petition to terminate all re-examination proceedings based on the final ruling of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. We have opposed that petition. On July 29, 2013, the plaintiff filed a second lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. CV13-05463 alleging that we have continued to infringe the three patents on an automatic stapling machine and the methods used to assemble box springs, and that the plaintiff is entitled to additional damages. Our answer is not yet due. However, we intend to vigorously defend ourselves. At this time, we do not believe it is probable that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operating cash flows or results of operations.

CONTINGENCIES

We are a defendant in various proceedings involving employment, antitrust, intellectual property, environmental, taxation and other laws. When it is probable, in management’s judgment, that we may incur monetary damages or other costs resulting from these proceedings or other claims, and we can reasonably estimate the amounts, we record appropriate liabilities in the financial statements and make charges against earnings. For all periods presented, we have recorded no material charges against earnings, and the total liabilities recorded are not material to our financial position.

Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

On August 10, 2010, a shareholder derivative suit was filed by the New England Carpenters Pension Fund in the Circuit Court of Jasper County, Missouri as Case No. 10AO-CC284. The suit was purportedly brought on our behalf, naming us as a nominal defendant, and certain current and former officers and directors as individual defendants including David S. Haffner, Karl G. Glassman, Matthew C. Flanigan, Ernest C. Jett, Harry M. Cornell, Jr., Felix E. Wright, Robert Ted Enloe, III, Richard T. Fisher, Judy C. Odom, Maurice E. Purnell, Jr., Ralph W. Clark and Michael A. Glauber. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the individual defendants: breached their fiduciary duties; backdated and received backdated stock options violating our stock plans; caused or allowed us to issue false and misleading financial statements and proxy statements; sold our stock while possessing material non-public information; committed gross mismanagement; wasted corporate assets; committed fraud; violated the Missouri Securities Act; and were unjustly enriched.

The plaintiff is seeking, among other things: unspecified monetary damages against the individual defendants; certain equitable and other relief relating to the profits from the alleged improper conduct; the adoption of certain corporate governance proposals; the imposition of a constructive trust over the defendants’ stock options and proceeds; punitive damages; the rescission of certain unexercised options; and the reimbursement of litigation costs. The plaintiff is not seeking monetary relief from us. We have director and officer liability insurance in force subject to customary limits and exclusions.

We and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the suit in late October 2010, asserting: the plaintiff failed to make demand on our Board and shareholders as required by Missouri law, and this failure to make demand should not be excused; the dismissal of the substantially similar suit in 2009 precludes the 2010 suit; the plaintiff is not a representative shareholder; the suit was based on a statistical analysis of stock option grants and our stock prices that we believe was flawed; the plaintiff failed to state a substantive claim; the common law fraud claim was not pled with sufficient particularity; and the statute of limitations has expired on the fraud claim and all the alleged challenged grants except the December 30, 2005 grant. As to this grant, the motions to dismiss advised the Court that it was made under our Deferred Compensation Program, which (i) provided that options would be dated on the last business day of December, and (ii) was filed with the SEC on December 2, 2005 setting out the pricing mechanism well before the grant date. On April 6, 2011, the suit was dismissed without prejudice.

On May 12, 2011, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals. On November 28, 2012, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal finding that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded it would be futile to make demand on the Board and shareholders. The Court of Appeals did not address the other grounds that had been raised in the motions to dismiss. We filed a request for transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court on December 12, 2012, which was denied by the Court of Appeals. On January 3, 2013, we filed a transfer petition to the Missouri Supreme Court. On February 26, 2013, the Missouri Supreme Court denied our request. The case was sent back to Jasper County, Missouri for further proceedings. At the parties' request, on June 4, 2013, the circuit court stayed all proceedings to allow the parties to mediate the dispute.

We do not expect that the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operating cash flows or results of operations.

Antitrust Lawsuits

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits was initiated in several U.S. federal courts and in Canada against over 20 defendants alleging that competitors of our carpet underlay business unit and other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. and Canadian antitrust laws.

A number of these lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, most without prejudice. Of the U.S. cases remaining, we have been named as a defendant in (a) three direct purchaser class action cases (the first on November 15, 2010) and a consolidated amended class action complaint on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products;

(b) an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21, 2011; and an indirect purchaser class action case filed on May 23, 2011; (c) 38 individual direct purchaser cases filed between March 22, 2011 and June 20, 2013; and (d) two individual cases alleging direct and indirect purchaser claims under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, one filed on November 29, 2012 and the other on April 11, 2013. All of the pending U.S. federal cases in which we have been named as a defendant, have been filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196.

In the U.S. actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of unspecified damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against future violations. On April 15 and May 6, 2011, we filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct purchaser and indirect purchaser class actions in the consolidated case in Ohio, for failure to state a legally valid claim. On July 19, 2011, the Ohio Court denied the motions to dismiss. Discovery is underway in the U.S. actions. Motions for class certification have been filed on behalf of both direct and indirect purchasers. A hearing on the motions is expected to be held in December 2013.

We have been named in two Canadian class action cases (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products), both under the name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited and Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et.al. in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-10-15164 (amended November 2, 2011) and CV-11-17279 (issued December 30, 2011). In each of the Canadian cases, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek from over 13 defendants restitution of the amount allegedly overcharged, general and special damages in the amount of $100, punitive damages of $10, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and the costs of the investigation and the action. We are not yet required to file our defenses in the Canadian actions. In addition, on July 10, 2012, plaintiff in a class action case (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products) styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. Produits Vitafoam Canada Limitée, et. al. in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice (Montréal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, filed an amended motion for authorization seeking to add us and other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products as defendants in this case.

On June 22, 2012, we were also made party to a lawsuit brought in the 16^th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, Case Number 1216-CV15179 under the caption “Dennis Baker, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated vs. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated.” The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and/or a class of indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products in the State of Missouri, alleged that we violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based upon our alleged illegal price inflation of flexible polyurethane foam products. The plaintiff seeks unspecified actual damages, punitive damages and the recovery of reasonable attorney fees. We filed a motion to dismiss this action, which was denied on November 5, 2012. Discovery has commenced and plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification.

We deny all of the allegations in all of the above actions and will vigorously defend ourselves. These contingencies are subject to many uncertainties. Therefore, based on the information available to date, we cannot estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any, because, at this juncture of the proceedings; discovery is incomplete (class certification issues are not yet ripe, all expert liability reports have not been exchanged); and because the litigation involves unsettled legal theories.

Brazilian Value-Added Tax Matters

On December 22, 2011, the Brazilian Finance Ministry, Federal Revenue Office issued a notice of violation against our wholly-owned subsidiary, Leggett & Platt do Brasil Ltda. (“L&P Brazil”) in the amount of approximately $3.3, under Case No. 10855.724660/2011-43. The Brazilian Revenue Office claimed that for the period beginning November 2006 and continuing through December 2007, L&P Brazil used an incorrect tariff code for the collection and payment of value-added tax primarily on the sale of mattress innerspring units in Brazil. L&P Brazil responded to the notice of violation on January 25, 2012 denying the violation.

On December 17, 2012, the Brazilian Revenue Office issued an additional notice of violation in the amount of approximately $5.8 under MPF Case No. 0811000.2011.00438 covering the period from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010 on the same subject matter. L&P Brazil responded to the notice of violation on January 17, 2013 denying the violation. The Brazilian Revenue Office, on June 13, 2013, denied L&P Brazil's defenses and upheld the assessment at the first administrative level. L&P appealed this decision on July 8, 2013. It is possible that we may receive an additional notice of violation for years 2011 and 2012.

In addition, L&P Brazil received assessments on December 22, 2011, and June 26, July 2 and November 5, 2012 from the Brazilian Revenue Office where the Revenue Office challenged L&P Brazil’s use of certain tax credits in the years 2006 through 2010. Such credits are generated based upon the tariff classification and rate used by L&P Brazil for value-added tax on the sale of mattress innersprings. Combined with prior assessments, L&P Brazil has received assessments totaling approximately $2.0 on the same or similar denial of tax credit matters.

L&P Brazil is also party to a proceeding involving the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil where the State of Sao Paulo, on April 16, 2009, issued a Notice of Tax Assessment and Imposition of Fine to L&P Brazil seeking approximately $2.5 for the tax years 2006 and 2007, under Case No. 3.111.006 (DRT n°.04-256.169/2009). The State of Sao Paulo argued that L&P Brazil was using an incorrect tariff code for the collection and payment of value-added tax on sales of mattress innerspring units in the State of Sao Paulo. On September 29, 2010, the Court of Tax and Fees of the State of Sao Paulo ruled in favor of L&P Brazil nullifying the tax assessment. The State filed a special appeal and the Special Appeals court remanded the case back to the Court of Tax and Fees for further findings. On November 9, 2012, the Court of Tax and Fees again ruled in favor of L&P Brazil and nullified the tax assessment. On November 28, 2012, the State filed another special appeal. The determination to accept the special appeal was made on December 26, 2012, and L&P responded to this special appeal on January 24, 2013.

We were also informed on October 4, 2012 that the State of Sao Paulo issued an Auto-Infringement and Imposition of a Fine dated May 29, 2012 under Procedure Number 4.003.484 against L&P Brazil in the amount of approximately $2.1 for the tax years 2009 through 2011. Similar to the prior assessment, the State of Sao Paulo argues that L&P Brazil was using an incorrect tax rate for the collection and payment of value-added tax on sales of mattress innerspring units in the State of Sao Paulo. On June 21, 2013, the State of Sao Paulo's attorneys converted the Auto-Infringement and Imposition of a Fine No. 4.003.484 to a fiscal execution action against L&P Brazil in the amount of approximately $2.8, under Sorocaba Judicial District Court, Case No. 3005528-50.2013.8.26.0602. L&P Brazil has yet to file its response, but intends to deny the allegations.

On December 18, 2012, the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil issued a tax assessment to L&P Brazil relating to L&P Brazil's classifications of innersprings for the collection and payment of value-added tax on the sale of mattress innersprings in Minas Gerais from March 1, 2008 through August 31, 2012 in the amount of approximately $.6, under PTA Case No. 01.000.182756-62. L&P Brazil filed its response denying any violation on January 17, 2013.

On February 1, 2013, the Brazilian Finance Ministry filed suit against L&P Brazil in the Camanducaia Judicial District Court, Case No. 0002222-35.2013.8.13.0878, alleging the untimely payment of $.2 of social contributions (social security and social assistance payments). L&P Brazil filed its response on July 11, 2013, denying the allegations. L&P Brazil argued the payments were not required to be made because of the application of certain tax credits that were generated by L&P Brazil's use of a tariff code for the classification of value-added tax on the sale of mattress innersprings (i.e., the same underlying issue at stake in the other Brazilian matters).

We deny all of the allegations in these actions. We believe that we have valid bases upon which to contest such actions and will vigorously defend ourselves. However, these contingencies are subject to many uncertainties. At this time, we do not believe it is probable that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operating cash flows or results of operations.

Patent Infringement Claim

On January 24, 2012, in a case in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, a jury returned a verdict against us in the amount of $5 based upon an allegation by plaintiff that we infringed three patents on an automatic stapling machine and on methods used to assemble box springs. This action was originally filed on October 4, 2010, as case number CV10-7416 RGK (SSx) under the caption Imaginal Systematic, LLC v. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated; Simmons Bedding Company; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive. Leggett is contractually obligated to defend and indemnify Simmons Bedding Company against a claim for infringement.

On summary judgment motions, we unsuccessfully disputed each patent’s validity and denied that we infringed any patent. At the jury trial on damages issues, the plaintiff alleged damages of $16.2. The court denied plaintiff’s attempt to win an attorney fee award and triple the pre-verdict damages.

On April 9, 2012 we appealed the case to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on February 6, 2013 before a three judge appeal panel in the Federal Circuit in Washington D.C. On February 14, 2013, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment affirming the $5 verdict against us, which was fully accrued for in the first quarter of

2013 and then paid in the second quarter of 2013. We filed a petition for a rehearing of the Court of Appeals decision on March 18, 2013, which was denied by the Court of Appeals.

The plaintiff requested royalties for post-verdict use of the machines, which to date approximate $2, and requested pre-judgment interest in the amount of $.7. On July 3, 2013, the District Court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to additional ongoing royalties for our continued use of the machines, but did award pre-judgment interest of approximately $.5. On August 2, 2013, both parties filed a notice of appeal of this order to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. We also filed reexamination proceedings in the Patent Office (Case Nos. 95/001,543 filed February 11, 2011; 95/001,546 and 95/001,547 filed February 16, 2011), challenging the validity of each patent at issue. The Patent Office examiner ruled in our favor on the pertinent claims of one of the three patents. The Patent Office examiner initially ruled in our favor on the pertinent claims of the second patent, but subsequently reversed that decision. With respect to the third patent, the Patent Office examiner's decision upheld the validity of all claims. All three of these proceedings were appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals. Due to a change made to all of the machines, we do not believe that the machines currently use the feature alleged to have infringed the third patent. On April 25, 2013, the plaintiff filed a petition to terminate all re-examination proceedings based on the final ruling of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. We have opposed that petition.

On July 29, 2013, the plaintiff filed a second lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. CV13-05463 alleging that we have continued to infringe the three patents on an automatic stapling machine and the methods used to assemble box springs, and that the plaintiff is entitled to additional damages. Our answer is not yet due. However, we intend to vigorously defend ourselves.

At this time, we do not believe it is probable that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operating cash flows or results of operations.