11.

Contingent Liabilities and Commitments

The Company is contingently liable under terms of repurchase agreements with financial institutions providing inventory financing for certain dealers of certain of its products. These arrangements, which are customary in the industry, provide for the repurchase of products sold to dealers in the event of default by the dealer on the agreement to pay the financial institution. The repurchase price is generally determined by the original sales price of the product and pre-defined curtailment arrangements and the Company typically resells the repurchased product at a discount from its repurchase price. The risk of loss from these agreements is spread over numerous dealers.

The standby repurchase agreement obligations generally extend up to eighteen months from the date of sale of the related product to the dealer. In addition to the guarantee under these repurchase agreements, the Company also provides limited dealer inventory financing guarantees to certain of its dealers, certain of which are expected to expire in fiscal 2012.

The Company's principal commercial commitments under repurchase agreements and dealer inventory financing guarantees at January 31, 2012 are summarized in the following chart:


Commitment	Total Amount Committed			Terms of Commitments
Guarantee on dealer inventory financing		$	938	Various
Standby repurchase obligations on dealer inventory financing		$	887,039	Up to eighteen months

We account for the guarantee under our repurchase agreements of our dealers' financing by estimating and deferring a portion of the related product sale that represents the estimated fair value of the guarantee. The estimated fair value takes into account our estimate of the losses we will incur upon resale of any repurchases. This estimate is based on recent historical experience supplemented by management's assessment of current economic and other conditions affecting our dealers.

This deferred amount is included in our repurchase and guarantee reserve balances of $3,550 and $3,479 as of January 31, 2012 and July 31, 2011, respectively, which are included in other current liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves do not include any amounts for dealer inventory financing guarantees as the Company does not currently expect any losses from such guarantees and believes the fair value of these guarantees is immaterial.

The table below reflects losses incurred under repurchase agreements in the periods noted. Management believes that any future losses under these agreements will not have a significant effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flow.


	Three Months Ended January 31,				Six Months Ended January 31,
	2012		2011		2012		2011
Cost of units repurchased		$ 108		$ 2,848		$ 1,808		$ 5,068
Realization of units resold		55		2,400		1,582		4,327

Losses due to repurchase		$ 53		$ 448		$ 226		$ 741

The Company obtains certain vehicle chassis from automobile manufacturers under converter pool agreements. These agreements generally provide that the manufacturer will supply chassis at the Company's various production facilities under the terms and conditions set forth in the agreement. The manufacturer does not transfer the certificate of origin to the Company and, accordingly, the Company accounts for the chassis as consigned, unrecorded inventory. Upon being put into production, the Company becomes obligated to pay the manufacturer for the chassis. Chassis are typically converted and delivered to customers within 90 days of delivery. If the chassis is not converted within 90 days of delivery to the Company, the Company generally purchases the chassis and records the inventory. At January 31, 2012, chassis on hand accounted for as consigned, unrecorded inventory was $12,900. In addition to this consigned inventory, at January 31, 2012, an additional $9,580 of chassis provided by customers were located at the Company's production facilities pending further manufacturing. The Company never purchases these chassis and does not include their cost in its billings to the customer for the completed unit.

In addition to the matters described below, the Company is involved in certain litigation arising out of its operations in the normal course of its business, most of which is based upon state "lemon laws", warranty claims, other claims and accidents (for which the Company carries insurance above a specified self-insured retention or deductible amount). The outcomes of legal proceedings and claims brought against the Company are subject to significant uncertainty. There is significant judgment required in assessing both the probability of an adverse outcome and the determination as to whether an exposure can be reasonably estimated. In management's opinion, the ultimate disposition of any current legal proceedings or claims against the Company will not have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, operating results or cash flows, except that an adverse outcome in a significant litigation matter, including the matters discussed herein, could have a material effect on the operating results of a particular reporting period.

FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Litigation

Beginning in 2006, a number of lawsuits were filed against numerous trailer and manufactured housing manufacturers, including complaints against the Company. The complaints were filed in various state and federal courts throughout Louisiana, Alabama, Texas and Mississippi on behalf of Gulf Coast residents who lived in travel trailers, park model trailers and manufactured homes provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. The complaints generally allege that residents who occupied FEMA supplied emergency housing units, such as travel trailers, were exposed to formaldehyde emitted from the trailers. The plaintiffs allege various injuries from exposure, including health issues and emotional distress. Most of the initial cases were filed as class action suits. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL panel") has the authority to designate one court to coordinate and consolidate discovery and pretrial proceedings in a proceeding known as multidistrict litigation ("MDL"). The MDL panel transferred the actions to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL Court") because the actions in different jurisdictions involved common questions of fact. The MDL Court denied class certification in December 2008, and consequently, the cases are now being administered as a mass joinder of claims (the "MDL proceeding"). There are approximately 4,100 suits currently pending in the MDL Court.

The number of cases currently pending against the Company is approximately 500. Many of these lawsuits involve multiple plaintiffs, each of whom have brought claims against the Company. A number of cases against the Company have been dismissed for various reasons, including duplicative and unmatched lawsuits and failure of plaintiffs to appear or prosecute their claims. In the event a case does not settle or is not dismissed during the MDL proceeding, it is remanded back to the original court for disposition or trial. In September 2009, the MDL Court commenced hearing both bellwether jury trials and bellwether summary jury trials. The summary jury trial process is an alternative dispute resolution method which is non-binding and confidential. The Company has participated in one confidential summary jury trial.

The Company has filed motions for dismissal with respect to claims of plaintiffs in cases where the plaintiff failed to comply with discovery obligations. In the last several months, the MDL Court has ruled on several motions to dismiss and certain claimants have had their claims dismissed from the MDL proceeding. In addition, in December 2011, approximately 400 new claims were filed against the Company from current and former Mississippi residents. It is our understanding that the applicable Mississippi statute of limitations governing such actions expired December 31, 2011.

On December 21, 2011 the MDL Court issued an Order, that among other matters, mandated certain manufacturing defendants in the litigation, including the Company and its RV subsidiaries, to participate in mediation in January 2012. The Company's Heartland subsidiary participated in a mediation on January 27, 2012 and reached an agreement in principle to resolve the pending claims against it on February 2, 2012. The other Thor RV subsidiaries involved in the MDL proceeding collectively participated in a mediation on January 19, 2012 and during a second mediation session held on February 10, 2012 reached an agreement in principle to resolve the litigation. At this stage of the MDL proceeding, the terms and conditions of the settlement are confidential. The Company has previously accrued $5,000 for resolution of the litigation and it currently believes that such accrual is adequate to cover its liabilities resulting from the litigation.

Fisher v. K. Flanigan et al. and Damon Corporation

In 2005, plaintiff commenced an action against the Flanigans, the owners of a 1998 model year Damon motorhome, in the New York State Supreme Court, County of Erie, No. I2005-162. The complaint alleged that Mr. Fisher incurred serious and permanent bodily injuries after losing his balance and falling while walking in the motorhome's kitchen area as a result of Mr. Flanigan's negligent and reckless operation of the vehicle. In 2006, Fisher filed an amended complaint adding Damon, the final stage manufacturer of the motorhome, as a defendant alleging, as an additional cause of action, that the motorhome was defectively manufactured, designed or assembled and seeking to hold Damon jointly and severally liable for plaintiff's damages, including lost wages, past and future medical expenses, and past and future pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. Subsequently, the plaintiff modified the claims against Damon, asserting that Damon is liable on the theories of failure to warn and defective design. The trial court granted Damon's motion for summary judgment with respect to the design defect claim but denied Damon's motion seeking dismissal of plaintiff's failure to warn claim. Both Damon and plaintiff appealed the trial court's rulings on the two claims. The Flanigan defendants entered into a settlement with the plaintiff. On November 10, 2011, the Supreme Court of the State of New York-Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, decided the appeal in favor of Damon and ordered the case against Damon dismissed. Plaintiff moved for reargument of or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision entered November 10, 2011. The Supreme Court of the State of New York-Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, denied the motion on January 31, 2012. On February 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal with the State of New York Court of Appeals requesting leave to appeal from the Order of the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, entered in November 2011.