Contingencies

Beazer Homes and certain of its subsidiaries have been and continue to be named as defendants in various construction defect claims, complaints and other legal actions. The Company is subject to the possibility of loss contingencies arising in its business. In determining loss contingencies, we consider the likelihood of loss as well as the ability to reasonably estimate the amount of such loss or liability. An estimated loss is recorded when it is considered probable that a liability has been incurred and when the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated.

Warranty Reserves. We currently provide a limited warranty (ranging from one to two years) covering workmanship and materials per our defined performance quality standards. In addition, we provide a limited warranty (generally ranging from a minimum of five years up to the period covered by the applicable statute of repose) covering only certain defined construction defects. We also provide a defined structural element warranty with single-family homes and townhomes in certain states.

We subcontract our homebuilding work to subcontractors whose contracts generally include an indemnity obligation and a requirement that certain minimum insurance requirements be met, including providing us with a certificate of insurance prior to receiving payments for their work. Therefore, many claims relating to workmanship and materials are the primary responsibility of the subcontractors.

Warranty reserves are included in other liabilities and the provision for warranty accruals is included in home construction and land sales expenses in the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements. We record reserves covering anticipated warranty expense for each home closed. Management reviews the adequacy of warranty reserves each reporting period based on historical experience and management’s estimate of the costs to remediate the claims and adjusts these provisions accordingly. Our review includes a quarterly analysis of the historical data and trends in warranty expense by operating segment. An analysis by operating segment allows us to consider market specific factors such as our warranty experience, the number of home closings, the prices of homes, product mix and other data in estimating our warranty reserves. In addition, our analysis also contemplates the existence of any non-recurring or community-specific warranty related matters that might not be contemplated in our historical data and trends.

As a result of our quarterly analyses, we adjust our estimated warranty liabilities if required. While we believe our warranty reserves are adequate as of March 31, 2013, historical data and trends may not accurately predict actual warranty costs or future developments could lead to a significant change in the reserve. Our warranty reserves are as follows:



	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	March 31,						March 31,
(In thousands)	2013			2012			2013			2012
Balance at beginning of period	$	14,342		$	17,414		$	15,477		$	17,916
Accruals for warranties issued	1,302			1,741			2,730			3,228
Changes in liability related to warranties existing in prior periods	(437		)	(1,244		)	(1,739		)	(1,351		)
Payments made	(1,606		)	(1,778		)	(2,867		)	(3,660		)
Balance at end of period	$	13,601		$	16,133		$	13,601		$	16,133

Litigation

On June 3, 2009, Beazer Homes Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Lee County, State of Florida, filed by Bryson and Kimberly Royal, the owners of one of our homes in our Magnolia Lakes community in Ft. Myers, Florida. The complaint names the Company and certain distributors and suppliers of drywall and was on behalf of the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated owners of homes in Magnolia Lakes or alternatively in the State of Florida. The plaintiffs allege that the Company built their homes with defective drywall, manufactured in China, that contains sulfur compounds that allegedly corrode certain metals and that are allegedly capable of harming the health of individuals. Plaintiffs allege physical and economic damages and seek legal and equitable relief, medical monitoring and attorney's fees. This case has been transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to an order from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In addition, the Company has been named in other multi-plaintiff complaints filed in the multidistrict litigation and individual state court actions. We believe that the claims asserted in these actions are governed by home warranties or are without merit. The Company has offered to repair all of these homes pursuant to a repair protocol that has been adopted by the multidistrict litigation court, including those homes involved in litigation. To date, the owners of all but two of the affected homes have accepted the Company's offer to repair. Furthermore, the Company has agreed to participate in a global class settlement with the plaintiff class counsel and numerous other defendants in the multidistrict litigation, which was approved by the Court on February 13, 2013. The class action settlement requires Beazer to make a settlement payment that is not material to our consolidated financial position or results of operations, and resolves all claims, including future claims, against Beazer related to Chinese drywall. The only exception would have been any claims by persons or entities that opted out of the settlement, but there were no opt outs by the Court’s deadline. The Company also continues to pursue recovery against responsible subcontractors, drywall suppliers and drywall manufacturers for its repair costs. As of March 31, 2013, we have recorded an immaterial amount related to our expected liability under the settlement.

As disclosed in prior SEC filings, we operated Beazer Mortgage Corporation (BMC) from 1998 through February 2008 to offer mortgage financing to buyers of our homes. BMC entered into various agreements with mortgage investors, pursuant to which BMC originated certain mortgage loans and ultimately sold these loans to investors. In general underwriting decisions were not made by BMC but by the investors themselves or third-party service providers. From time to time we have received claims from institutions which have acquired certain of these mortgages demanding damages or indemnity arising from BMC's activities or that we repurchase such mortgages. We have been able to resolve these claims for amounts that are not material to our consolidated financial position or results of operation. We currently have an insignificant number of such claims outstanding for which we believe we have no liability. However, we cannot rule out the potential for additional mortgage loan repurchase or indemnity claims in the future from other investors, although, at this time, we do not believe that the exposure related to any such claims would be material to our consolidated financial position or results of operations. As of March 31, 2013, no liability has been recorded for any such additional claims as such exposure is not both probable and reasonably estimable.

We cannot predict or determine the timing or final outcome of the lawsuits or the effect that any adverse findings or determinations in the pending lawsuits may have on us. In addition, an estimate of possible loss or range of loss, if any, cannot presently be made with respect to certain of the above pending matters. An unfavorable determination in any of the pending lawsuits could result in the payment by us of substantial monetary damages which may not be fully covered by insurance. Further, the legal costs associated with the lawsuits and the amount of time required to be spent by management and the Board of Directors on these matters, even if we are ultimately successful, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Other Matters

As disclosed in our 2009 Form 10-K, on July 1, 2009, the Company announced that it had resolved the criminal and civil investigations by the United States Attorney’s Office in the Western District of North Carolina (the U.S. Attorney) and other state and federal agencies concerning matters that were the subject of the independent investigation, initiated in April 2007 by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors (the Investigation) and concluded in May 2008. Under the terms of a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), the Company’s liability for each of the fiscal years after 2010 through a portion of fiscal 2014 (unless extended as previously described in our 2009 Form 10-K) will be equal to 4% of the Company’s adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the DPA). The total amount of such obligations will be dependent on several factors; however, the maximum liability under the DPA and other settlement agreements discussed above will not exceed $55.0 million, of which $16.6 million has been paid as of March 31, 2013. Positive adjusted EBITDA in future years will require us to incur additional expense in the future.

In 2006, we received two Administrative Orders issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The Orders allege certain violations of wetlands disturbance permits and assess proposed fines of $630,000 and $678,000, respectively. We have met with the Department to discuss their concerns on the two affected communities and have requested hearings on both matters. Although we believe that we have significant defenses to the alleged violations, we have reached a settlement with the Department, through an Administrative Consent Order, for an amount that is not material to our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

We and certain of our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in various claims, complaints and other legal actions, most relating to construction defects, moisture intrusion and product liability. Certain of the liabilities resulting from these actions are covered in whole or part by insurance. In our opinion, based on our current assessment, the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

We have accrued $16.0 million and $19.4 million in other liabilities related to litigation and other matters, excluding warranty, as of March 31, 2013 and September 30, 2012, respectively.

We had outstanding letters of credit and performance bonds of approximately $23.2 million and $148.3 million, respectively, at March 31, 2013 related principally to our obligations to local governments to construct roads and other improvements in various developments. We have no outstanding letters of credit relating to our land option contracts as of March 31, 2013.