CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
CONTINGENCIES	15. 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-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. On January 17, 2012 plaintiff filed its appellate brief, and we filed our brief on March 21, 2012. Oral argument is expected to occur in the fall of 2012. 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 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 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 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 on March 21, 2011 (although the underlying lawsuits do not name us as a defendant); and an indirect purchaser class action case filed on May 23, 2011; and (c) 29 individual direct purchaser cases, (i) one filed March 22, 2011, (ii) another amended August 24, 2011 to remove class allegations, (iii) one amended August 25, 2011 to name us as a defendant, (iv) three others filed October 31, 2011, (v) one filed November 4, 2011, (vi) three filed December 6, 19 and 30, respectively, (vii) one filed January 27, 2012, (viii) five filed March 19, 2012, (ix) one amended March 30, 2012 to name us as a defendant, (x) one filed April 27, 2012, (xi) three filed April 30, 2012, (xii) two filed May 11, 2012, (xiii) one filed May 17, 2012, (xiv) four filed May 25, 2012, and (xv) one filed June 12, 2012. All of the pending U.S. cases in which we have been named as a defendant, have been filed in or have been 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 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. 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 15 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. 500-06-00524-104, 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 – Polyurethane Foam Class Action.” 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 plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, punitive damages and the recovery of reasonable attorney fees. We have not yet filed our response to this action. We deny all of the allegations in all of 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. *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 $4, 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. The Brazilian Revenue Office has communicated that it will likely expand the audit to the tax years 2008 through January 2011. As a result, it is possible that we may receive an additional notice of violation on the same subject matter. L&P Brazil responded to the notice of violation on January 25, 2012 denying the violation. In addition, L&P Brazil received assessments in July 2012 from the Brazilian Revenue Office where the Revenue Office challenged L&P Brazil’s use of certain tax credits in the years 2008 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 $1 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 $3.3 for the tax years 2006 and 2007. The State of Sao Paulo argued 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 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. 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, the jury entered 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 CV10-07416 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 plaintiff might also request royalties for post-verdict use of the machines. We intend to object to such request. At a bench trial, the court denied plaintiff’s attempt to win triple damages and attorney fees. On April 9, 2012 we appealed the case to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and believe we have valid bases upon which to appeal. We do not believe that it is probable that the judgment will be upheld on appeal in its current form. 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 twice ruled in our favor on the pertinent claims of one of the three patents. (Plaintiff has yet to appeal.) The Patent Office examiner initially ruled in our favor on the pertinent claims of the second patent, but subsequently reversed that decision. We appealed this reversal. With respect to the third patent, we appealed the Patent Office examiner’s decision upholding validity; however, 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. 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.

15. 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-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. On January 17, 2012 plaintiff filed its appellate brief, and we filed our brief on March 21, 2012. Oral argument is expected to occur in the fall of 2012.

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 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 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 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 on March 21, 2011 (although the underlying lawsuits do not name us as a defendant); and an indirect purchaser class action case filed on May 23, 2011; and (c) 29 individual direct purchaser cases, (i) one filed March 22, 2011, (ii) another amended August 24, 2011 to remove class allegations, (iii) one amended August 25, 2011 to name us as a defendant, (iv) three others filed October 31, 2011, (v) one filed November 4, 2011, (vi) three filed December 6, 19 and 30, respectively, (vii) one filed January 27, 2012, (viii) five filed March 19, 2012, (ix) one amended March 30, 2012 to name us as a defendant, (x) one filed April 27, 2012, (xi) three filed April 30, 2012, (xii) two filed May 11, 2012, (xiii) one filed May 17, 2012, (xiv) four filed May 25, 2012, and (xv) one filed June 12, 2012. All of the pending U.S. cases in which we have been named as a defendant, have been filed in or have been 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 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.

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 15 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. 500-06-00524-104, 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 – Polyurethane Foam Class Action.” 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 plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, punitive damages and the recovery of reasonable attorney fees. We have not yet filed our response to this action.

We deny all of the allegations in all of 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.

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 $4, 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. The Brazilian Revenue Office has communicated that it will likely expand the audit to the tax years 2008 through January 2011. As a result, it is possible that we may receive an additional notice of violation on the same subject matter. L&P Brazil responded to the notice of violation on January 25, 2012 denying the violation.

In addition, L&P Brazil received assessments in July 2012 from the Brazilian Revenue Office where the Revenue Office challenged L&P Brazil’s use of certain tax credits in the years 2008 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 $1 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 $3.3 for the tax years 2006 and 2007. The State of Sao Paulo argued 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 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.

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, the jury entered 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 CV10-07416 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 plaintiff might also request royalties for post-verdict use of the machines. We intend to object to such request. At a bench trial, the court denied plaintiff’s attempt to win triple damages and attorney fees.

On April 9, 2012 we appealed the case to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and believe we have valid bases upon which to appeal. We do not believe that it is probable that the judgment will be upheld on appeal in its current form.

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 twice ruled in our favor on the pertinent claims of one of the three patents. (Plaintiff has yet to appeal.) The Patent Office examiner initially ruled in our favor on the pertinent claims of the second patent, but subsequently reversed that decision. We appealed this reversal. With respect to the third patent, we appealed the Patent Office examiner’s decision upholding validity; however, 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.

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.