13.	Commitments and Contingencies

In October 2004, Patrick Tracy, whom NVR had employed as a Sales and Marketing Representative (“SMR”), filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York alleging that NVR had misclassified him and other SMRs as outside sales personnel exempt from certain state and federal wage laws, including overtime pay requirements. Mr. Tracy’s attorneys subsequently filed several other lawsuits in various courts asserting substantially similar claims on behalf of various classes or groups of SMRs. None of those courts have held that the claims are appropriate for class, collective, or other group treatment, and the Western District of New York ruled in April 2013 that the claims in Mr. Tracy’s case could not proceed on such a basis. The Western District of New York reached the same conclusion in July 2014 regarding a separate case that Mr. Tracy’s attorneys brought on behalf of other SMRs.

In October 2013, Mr. Tracy’s individual claims were tried by a jury, which returned a unanimous verdict in NVR’s favor and found that the Company had properly classified Mr. Tracy as an exempt outside sales person. The plaintiff has sought review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in which he challenges the legal standard that the trial court applied in crafting its jury instructions regarding the outside sales exemption, in addition to rulings that the trial court made at earlier stages of the case. That appeal is fully briefed and scheduled for oral argument on May 15, 2015. The remainder of the cases noted above are in various stages of pre-trial proceedings, many of them stayed or administratively closed pending a final disposition of the Tracy action.

The Company believes that the compensation practices in regard to SMRs are entirely lawful and has vigorously defended all claims challenging those practices. In light of the points noted above, the Company has not recorded any associated liabilities on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets in conjunction with any of those claims.

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 was subsequently 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, August 2012 and November 2014 with representatives from both the EPA and DOJ. The Company has continued discussions with 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.

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.