Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Contingencies

Contingencies

(8) Contingencies

In early February 2010, we received a letter from a California fastener supplier dated January 26, 2010. This letter threatened to sue us for an alleged violation of an exclusive distribution arrangement this supplier believes exists between our organizations. In addition to the letter, this supplier provided a press release and a video regarding the claim that they threatened to make public unless we agreed to mediation of the claim. Shortly after receipt of this letter, we performed a preliminary internal review to understand (1) who this supplier was and (2) the nature of our relationship with this supplier. Based on that review, we determined that this supplier manufactures a niche type of fastener and that the total volume of purchases by us, from all suppliers, over the purported term of the alleged exclusivity arrangement of this niche type of fastener did not exceed $1 million. Following completion of our preliminary internal review, we requested additional information and documentation from the supplier. The supplier's response failed to provide the requested information and documentation. By letter dated February 26, 2010, we quantified for the supplier our total volume of purchases as discussed above and informed the supplier that we believed their claim was grossly exaggerated and completely unsupported. We have not received any direct response to our February 26, 2010 letter. On May 3, 2010, this supplier filed suit in Arkansas federal court alleging damages. In response, we filed a motion to dismiss. This motion to dismiss was denied on August 16, 2010. We subsequently filed two motions for summary judgment. The first summary judgment motion was partially denied.

On August 24, 2011, the court issued an order granting Fastenal's second motion for summary judgment in its entirety. On September 8, 2011, this supplier filed an appeal in connection with the order granting Fastenal's second motion for summary judgment. Based on current information, we believe the prospect that we will incur a material liability as a result of this claim is remote. While we are not required to disclose this matter under the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission ('SEC'), we initially disclosed the existence of this threat in February 2010 (in our 2009 annual report on Form 10-K) as we believed that disclosure was prudent due to the alleged amount ($180 million) of the claim and the threat to make these allegations public.