Commitments And Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments And Contingencies

Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies

Credit Facilities and Commitments

We have a line of credit arrangement with a bank which expires August 4, 2012. The line allows for borrowings of up to $8,000 at 0.9% over the LIBOR rate. On December 31, 2011 there was $0 outstanding on the line. We do not pay a fee for the unused portion of this line.

We maintain certain government and agency securities as collateral for the benefit of our insurance carrier. As of December 31, 2011, the total balance of these government and agency securities was $26,845. The classification and valuation of these securities are discussed in notes 1 and 2.

During 2001, we completed the construction of a new building for our Kansas City warehouse, and completed an expansion of this warehouse in 2004. We were required to obtain financing for the construction and expansion of this facility under an Industrial Revenue Bond (IRB). We subsequently purchased 100% of the outstanding bonds under the IRB at par. In addition to purchasing the outstanding obligations, we have a right of offset included in the IRB debt agreement. Accordingly, we have netted the impact of the IRB in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. The outstanding balance of the IRB was $9,733 at December 31, 2011 and 2010. On February 1, 2012, approximately $6,579 of the IRB became due which effectively eliminated this portion of the IRB.

Legal Contingencies

We are involved in certain legal actions. The outcomes of these legal actions are not within our complete control and may not be known for prolonged periods of time. In some actions, the claimants seek damages, as well as other relief, that could require significant expenditures or result in lost revenues. We record a liability for these legal actions when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a known or probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. If a loss is reasonably possible but not known or probable, and can be reasonably estimated, the estimated loss or range of loss is disclosed. In most cases, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. Negative outcomes for our litigation matters are not considered probable or cannot be reasonably estimated.

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. On December 16, 2011, the court issued an order granting, in part, Fastenal's request to recover on its Bill of Costs and Petition for Attorney's Fees from this supplier, which order this supplier appealed on January 9, 2012. Both appealed orders are pending. 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, 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.