Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Contingencies

Contingencies

13. CONTINGENCIES

We are a defendant in various proceedings involving employment, 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.

NPI Lawsuit

On January 18, 2008, National Products, Inc. ("NPI") sued Gamber-Johnson, LLC ("Gamber"), our wholly-owned subsidiary, in Case C08-0049C-JLR, in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington, alleging that portions of a Gamber marketing video contained false and misleading statements. NPI and Gamber compete in the market for vehicle computer mounting systems. NPI sought: (a) injunctive relief requiring Gamber to stop using the video and to notify customers; (b) damages for its alleged lost profits; and (c) disgorgement of Gamber's profits in an unspecified amount.

Although part of the claims were dismissed by the Court before and during trial, a jury, on April 12, 2010, found four statements in the video were false and deliberate and awarded $10 in disgorgement damages against Gamber. On August 16, 2010, the Court: (a) reduced the jury verdict to approximately $0.5; (b) granted NPI attorney fees and costs in an amount to be determined; and (c) granted an injunction requiring Gamber to notify its distributors and resellers of the verdict. The Court subsequently awarded NPI $2.0 in attorney fees and costs.

We believe that Gamber has valid bases upon which the appellate court could overturn the verdict and the award of attorney fees and costs. On September 17, 2010, NPI filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Gamber has also filed an appeal. We established an accrual for this suit in an amount we believe is probable. Also, we believe that it is probable that at least part of the verdict, attorney fees and costs will be covered by insurance, but that coverage is subject to the insurance company's reservation of rights. We do not expect that the outcome of this suit will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operating cash flows or results of operations.

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-CC00284 ("2010 Suit"). The 2010 Suit was substantially similar to a prior suit filed by the same plaintiff, in the same court, on February 5, 2009 ("2009 Suit"). The 2009 Suit was dismissed without prejudice based on the plaintiff's failure to make demand on our Board and shareholders. As before, the plaintiff did not make such demand. On April 6, 2011, the 2010 Suit was dismissed without prejudice. On May 12, 2011, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals.

The 2010 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 was 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 was 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 2010 Suit in late October 2010, asserting: the plaintiff failed to make demand on our Board and shareholders as required by Missouri law, and, consistent with the Court's ruling in the 2009 Suit, this failure to make demand should not be excused; the plaintiff is not a representative shareholder; the 2010 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.

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 against over 20 defendants alleging that competitors of our carpet underlay division and other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust laws.

A number of these lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Of the cases remaining, we have been named as a defendant in (a) four direct purchaser class action cases (the first on November 15, 2010) and a consolidated amended class action complaint filed on February 28, 2011 on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products; (b) an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed March 21, 2011(although the underlying lawsuits do not name us as a defendant); (c) an individual direct purchaser case filed on March 22, 2011; and (d) an indirect purchaser class action case filed on May 23, 2011. All pending 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-02196.

In these 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 direct purchaser and indirect purchaser class actions, for failure to state a legally valid claim. On July 19, 2011, the Court denied the motions to dismiss.

We deny all of the allegations in these actions and will vigorously defend ourselves. This contingency is subject to many uncertainties. Therefore, based on the information available to date, we cannot estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any. At this time, we do not expect that the outcome of these actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operating cash flows or results of operations.