Legal Proceedings

9 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2011

Legal Proceedings [Abstract]

Legal Proceedings

13. Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved in various claims and litigation arising principally in the ordinary course of business.

In January 2006, the Company received a request for information pursuant to Section 308 of the Clean Water Act from Region 3 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) concerning storm water discharge practices in connection with its homebuilding projects in the states that comprise EPA Region 3. The Company provided information to the EPA pursuant to the request. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has now assumed responsibility for the oversight of this matter and has alleged that the Company has violated regulatory requirements applicable to storm water discharges and that it may seek injunctive relief and/or civil penalties. The Company is now engaged in settlement discussions with representatives from the DOJ and the EPA.

On November 4, 2008, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the Chancery Court of Delaware by Milton Pfeiffer against Robert I. Toll, Zvi Barzilay, Joel H. Rassman, Bruce E. Toll, Paul E. Shapiro, Robert S. Blank, Carl B. Marbach, and Richard J. Braemer. The plaintiff purports to bring his claims on behalf of Toll Brothers, Inc. and alleges that the director and officer defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders with respect to their sales of shares of the Company’s common stock during the period beginning on December 9, 2004 and ending on November 8, 2005, as alleged in a securities class action suit that was filed against the Company and certain of its directors and officers and, as disclosed in the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended January 31, 2011, was settled by the parties in March 2011 (“Class Action”). The plaintiff alleges that such stock sales were made while in possession of non-public, material information about the Company. The plaintiff seeks contribution and indemnification from the individual director and officer defendants for any liability found against the Company in the Class Action. In addition, again purportedly on the Company’s behalf, the plaintiff seeks disgorgement of the defendants’ profits from their stock sales.

On March 4, 2009, a second shareholder derivative action was brought by Oliverio Martinez in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case was brought against the eleven then-current members of the Company’s board of directors and its Chief Accounting Officer. This complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment during the period from February 2005 to November 2006. The complaint further alleges that certain of the defendants sold the Company’s stock during this period while in possession of the allegedly non-public, material information about the role of speculative investors in the Company’s sales and plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits from these sales. The complaint also asserts a claim for equitable indemnity for costs and expenses incurred by the Company in connection with defending the Class Action.

On April 1, 2009, a third shareholder derivative action was filed by William Hall, also in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against the eleven then-current members of the Company’s board of directors and its Chief Accounting Officer. This complaint is identical to the previous shareholder complaint filed in Philadelphia and, on July 14, 2009, the two cases were consolidated. On April 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The Company’s Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws provide for indemnification of its directors and officers. The Company has also entered into individual indemnification agreements with each of its directors.

Due to the high degree of judgment required in determining the amount of potential loss related to the various claims and litigation in which the Company is involved, including those noted above, and the inherent variability in predicting future settlements and judicial decisions, the Company cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses in excess of its accruals for these matters. The Company believes that adequate provision for resolution of all claims and pending litigation has been made for probable losses and the disposition of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and liquidity or on its financial condition.