(10)	Commitments and Contingencies

Short-term investments include $28,177,000 in current maturities of investments held by the Company's insurance segment at September 24, 2011. These short-term investments together with $22,006,000 of the non-current portion of investments included in other assets at September 24, 2011 provide collateral for the $45,165,000 of letters of credit issued to guarantee payment of insurance claims. As of September 24, 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. Landstar's periodic and current reports previously filed with the SEC set forth the background for the Litigation through June 25, 2011 (the "Background"). The following information updates the Background.

On March 8, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court to seek to further appeal certain portions of the October 4, 2010 ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On October 3, 2011, the United States Supreme Court entered an order denying such petition. The decertification of the class by the District Court was upheld on appeal and the Litigation therefore only involves the Named Plaintiffs and OOIDA. The Plaintiffs subsequently informed the Defendants of their intent to continue to seek affirmative relief with the District Court on remand.

As a result of the Supreme Court's actions, the only open issues with respect to the Litigation are (i) the Plaintiffs' right to injunctive relief with respect to the violation of the federal leasing regulations described in the Background, (ii) the Named Plaintiffs' right to hold an evidentiary hearing to give them an opportunity to produce evidence of any damages they actually sustained as a result of such violation, (iii) the Plaintiffs' right to an award of attorneys' fees and/or costs and (iv) the Defendants' right to an award of attorneys' fees and/or costs. Although no assurances can be given with respect to the outcome of the Litigation, including the amount of 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 submitted its response to the CID in August 2011 and intends to continue to cooperate fully with the U.S. Attorney.

On September 23, 2011, a jury sitting in a state court in Cobb County, Georgia, entered a damage award of approximately $40.2 million (such amount, plus pre-judgment interest and a portion of plaintiffs' attorney fees in an amount not yet determined are collectively referred to herein as the "Damage Award") against Landstar Ranger, Inc., Landstar System Holdings, Inc. and Landstar System, Inc. The Damage Award arises out of an accident that occurred in February, 2007, involving a truck owner-operator leased to Landstar Ranger, Inc. Under the terms of the commercial trucking insurance program that Landstar had in place in 2007, Landstar retained liability for up to $5 million with respect to the accident giving rise to the Damage Award. Landstar has third party insurance in place covering all amounts of the Damage Award in excess of such retention, including all related out-of-pocket expenses, such as the costs of an appeal bond, post-judgment interest and attorney fees comprising the Damage Award. The Company recorded a $5 million charge representing its self-insured retention in respect of this accident in the consolidated financial results of the Company in the 2007 first quarter. Accordingly, the Company's portion of the Damage Award was previously recorded and therefore did not reduce consolidated operating income or net income for the Company's 2011 third quarter. Under the terms of the Company's insurance policies, the Company is the primary obligor of the amount of the Damage Award, and as such, the Company has reported a $40.2 million receivable from the third party insurance providers in other receivables and a corresponding liability of the same amount in insurance claims in the consolidated balance sheets at September 24, 2011. The Company and its insurers intend to appeal the Damage Award. No assurances can be given regarding the outcome of such appeal.

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.