(10)	Commitments and Contingencies

Short-term investments include $30,489,000 in current maturities of investments held by the Company's insurance segment at June 25, 2011. These short-term investments together with $19,694,000 of the non-current portion of investments included in other assets at June 25, 2011 provide collateral for the $45,165,000 of letters of credit issued to guarantee payment of insurance claims. As of June 25, 2011, Landstar also had $33,499,000 of letters of credit outstanding under the Company's credit agreement.

As further described in periodic and current reports previously filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), the Company and certain of its subsidiaries (the "Defendants") are defendants in a suit (the "Litigation") brought in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "District Court") by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. ("OOIDA") and four former BCO Independent Contractors (the "Named Plaintiffs" and, with OOIDA, the "Plaintiffs") on behalf of all independent contractors who provide truck capacity to the Company and its subsidiaries under exclusive lease arrangements (the "BCO Independent Contractors"). The Plaintiffs allege that certain aspects of the Company's motor carrier leases and related practices with its BCO Independent Contractors violate certain federal leasing regulations and seek injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys' fees.

On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the request by Plaintiffs for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of the Defendants and issued written orders setting forth its rulings related to the decertification of the plaintiff class and other important elements of the Litigation relating to liability, injunctive relief and monetary relief. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the "Appellate Court") of certain of the District Court's rulings in favor of the Defendants. The Defendants asked the Appellate Court to affirm such rulings and filed a cross-appeal with the Appellate Court with respect to certain other rulings of the District Court. On September 3, 2008, the Appellate Court issued its initial ruling. Each of the parties to the Litigation subsequently filed a petition with the Appellate Court seeking rehearing of the Appellate Court's ruling.

On October 4, 2010, the Appellate Court denied each of the motions for rehearing, withdrew its initial ruling and substituted a new ruling in its place. The new ruling by the Appellate Court confirmed the absence of any violations alleged by the Plaintiffs of the federal leasing regulations with respect to the written terms of all leases currently in use between the Defendants and BCO Independent Contractors. In particular, the new ruling, among other things, held that (i) the Defendants are not prohibited by the applicable federal leasing regulations from charging administrative or other fees to BCO Independent Contractors in connection with voluntary programs offered by the Defendants through which a BCO Independent Contractor may purchase discounted products and services for a charge that is deducted against the compensation payable to the BCO Independent Contractor (a "Charge-back Deduction"), (ii) in the case of a Charge-back Deduction expressed as a flat-fee in the lease, the applicable federal leasing regulations do not require Defendants to do more than disclose the flat-fee Charge-back Deduction in the lease and follow up with settlement statements that explain the final amount charged back, (iii) the Plaintiffs are not entitled to restitution or disgorgement with respect to violations by Defendants of the applicable federal leasing regulations but instead may recover only actual damages, if any, which they sustained as a result of any such violations and (iv) the claims of BCO Independent Contractors may not be handled on a class action basis for purposes of determining the amount of actual damages, if any, they sustained as a result of any violations.

However, the new ruling of the Appellate Court reversed the District Court's ruling that an old version of the lease formerly used by Defendants but not in use with any current BCO Independent Contractor complied with applicable disclosure requirements under the federal leasing regulations with respect to adjustments to compensation payable to BCO Independent Contractors on certain loads sourced from the U. S. Department of Defense. The Appellate Court then remanded the case to the District Court to permit the Plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief with respect to this violation of the federal leasing regulations and to hold an evidentiary hearing to give the Named Plaintiffs an opportunity to produce evidence of any damages they actually sustained as a result of such violation.

On March 8, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court to seek to further appeal certain portions of the Appellate Court's October 4, 2010 ruling. On March 23, 2011, the Plaintiffs requested that the United States Supreme Court consolidate such petition with a petition OOIDA subsequently filed to seek to further appeal a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on January 20, 2011, in a case not otherwise involving the Company, Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc., et al v. Swift Transp. Co., Inc.

Although no assurances can be given with respect to the outcome of the Litigation, including the March 8, 2011 petition to the United States Supreme Court and any possible award of attorneys' fees to the Plaintiffs, the Company believes that (i) no Plaintiff has sustained any actual damages as a result of any violations by the Defendants of the federal leasing regulations and (ii) injunctive relief, if any, that may be granted by the District Court on remand is unlikely to have a material adverse financial effect on the Company.

In June 2011, Landstar System, Inc. received a Civil Investigative Demand (the "CID") from the United States Attorney for the Western District of Kentucky issued pursuant to the False Claims Act. The CID requests documents and written interrogatories limited to freight hauled to or from Fort Campbell, Kentucky by certain subsidiaries of the Company and billed to the U.S. government. The Company has been and continues to cooperate fully with this request.

The Company is involved in certain claims and pending litigation, including those described herein, arising from the normal conduct of business. Based on knowledge of the facts and, in certain cases, opinions of outside counsel, management believes that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses with respect to the resolution of all such claims and pending litigation and that the ultimate outcome, after provisions therefor, will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the Company, but could have a material effect on the results of operations in a given quarter or year.