14.

Commitments and Contingencies

On July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007 in the Superior Court in New Jersey, alleging that the Company incorrectly classified its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt from overtime wages. These lawsuits are similar in nature to another lawsuit filed on October 29, 2004 by another former employee in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The complaints seek injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages, including fringe benefits, liquidated damages equal to the overtime wages allegedly due and not paid, attorney and other fees and interest, and where available, multiple damages. The suits were filed as purported class actions. However, while a number of individuals have filed consents to join and assert federal claims in the New York action, none of the groups of employees that the lawsuits purport to represent have been certified as a class, and the Company has filed a motion to decertify the federal collective action claim and dismiss the individuals who filed consents from the case. The lawsuits filed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina have been stayed pending further developments in the New York action.

The Company believes that its compensation practices in regard to sales and marketing representatives are entirely lawful and in compliance with two letter rulings from the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued in January 2007. Courts that have considered similar claims against other homebuilders have acknowledged the DOL’s position that sales and marketing representatives were properly classified as exempt from overtime wages and the only court to have directly addressed the exempt status of such employees concluded that the DOL’s position was valid. Accordingly, the Company has vigorously defended and intends to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. Because the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome of this case, or the amount of damages, if any, the Company has not recorded any associated liabilities on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

In June 2010, the Company received a Request for Information from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) pursuant to Section 308 of the Clean Water Act. The request sought information about storm water discharge practices in connection with homebuilding projects completed or underway by the Company in New York and New Jersey. The Company cooperated with this request, and provided information to the EPA. The Company has since been informed by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) that the EPA forwarded the information on the matter to the DOJ, and the DOJ requested that the Company meet with the government to discuss the status of the case. Meetings took place in January 2012 and August 2012 with representatives from both the EPA and DOJ. It is as yet unclear what next steps the DOJ will take in the matter. The Company intends to continue cooperating with any future EPA and/or DOJ inquiries. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this inquiry, nor can it reasonably estimate the potential costs that may be associated with its eventual resolution.

In August 2011, the Wage and Hour Division of the DOL notified the Company that it was initiating an investigation to determine the Company’s compliance with the Fair Standards Labor Act (“FSLA”). In the notice, the DOL requested certain information, including payroll data for a two year period and multiple community-specific items related to the Company’s homebuilding operations. The Company has cooperated with this information request, has either provided or made available the information that the DOL has requested and expects to continue to cooperate with the DOL’s investigation. The Company believes that its payroll practices are in compliance with the FSLA. The DOL has investigated the Company’s headquarters, two manufacturing facilities and certain of its operating divisions. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this investigation, nor can it reasonably estimate the potential costs that may be associated with its eventual resolution.

The Company and its subsidiaries are also involved in various other litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, and based on advice of legal counsel, this litigation is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. Legal costs incurred in connection with outstanding litigation are expensed as incurred.