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. 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. In addition to the guarantee under these repurchase agreements, the Company also provides limited dealer inventory financing guarantees to certain of its dealers.

The Company’s principal commercial commitments under repurchase agreements and dealer inventory financing guarantees at January 31, 2013 are summarized in the following chart:


Commitment	Total Amount Committed		Term of Commitments
Guarantee on dealer inventory financing	$	821	Various
Standby repurchase obligations on dealer inventory financing	$	1,109,305	Up to eighteen months

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

This deferred amount is included in the repurchase and guarantee reserve balances of $4,248 and $3,150 as of January 31, 2013 and July 31, 2012, 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. The Company 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 flows.


	Three Months Ended January 31,				Six Months Ended January 31,
	2013		2012		2013		2012
Cost of units repurchased	$	1,526	$	108	$	2,128	$	1,808
Realization of units resold		1,264		55		1,769		1,582

Losses due to repurchase	$	262	$	53	$	359	$	226

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 are not converted within 90 days of delivery to the Company, the Company generally purchases the chassis and records the inventory. At January 31, 2013, vendor supplied chassis on hand accounted for as consigned, unrecorded inventory was $13,567. In addition to this consigned inventory, at January 31, 2013, an additional $18,300 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.

Legal Matters

In addition to the matter 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 and vehicle 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 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 alleged that residents who occupied FEMA supplied emergency housing units, such as travel trailers, were exposed to formaldehyde emitted from the trailers. The plaintiffs alleged 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”) had 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 were administered as a mass joinder of claims (the “MDL proceeding”).

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 several of 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. On March 27, 2012, Heartland and its insurance carriers entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) memorializing the February 2, 2012 settlement. On March 30, 2012, Thor Industries, Inc., for itself and on behalf of its other RV subsidiaries involved in the MDL proceeding, and its insurance carriers, entered into an MOU memorializing the settlement reached on February 10, 2012.

As previously reported on April 19, 2012 by the Company on its Form 8-K, the Company and its RV subsidiaries involved in the MDL proceeding, their respective insurance carriers, several unaffiliated manufacturers of RVs and their insurers, and legal representatives of the plaintiffs each executed a Stipulation of Settlement in April 2012 (the “Stipulation of Settlement”).

On June 1, 2012, the Company paid $4,700 into the Registry of the United States District of Louisiana. This payment represents full payment of the Company and its subsidiaries’ obligation under the Stipulation of Settlement.

On September 27, 2012, after counsel for the plaintiffs produced the list of members of the class who requested exclusion from the proposed settlement, the MDL Court conducted a Fairness Hearing during which final approval of the proposed settlement was evaluated. On that same date, the Court approved the settlement and entered a final, appealable order dismissing all of the claims pending in the MDL litigation. Because no plaintiffs with claims against the Company or any of its subsidiaries opted out of the settlement, this order, assuming no appeal is taken, effectively ends the litigation against the Company and its subsidiaries.