Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Contingencies [Abstract]

Contingencies

(9) 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.

Since 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, 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 of December 31, 2011, our warranty reserves include an estimate for the repair of 60 homes in Florida where certain of our subcontractors installed defective Chinese drywall in homes that were delivered during our 2006 and 2007 fiscal years. As of December 31, 2011, we have completed repairs on approximately 95% of these homes and we are in the process of repairing the remaining homes that we have been given permission to repair. We continue to inspect additional homes in order to determine whether they also contain the defective Chinese drywall. Like most major homebuilders, we contract for many of our construction activities on a turnkey basis, including the purchase and installation of drywall. Therefore, with few exceptions, our contractors purchased the drywall from independent suppliers, and delivered and installed this drywall into Beazer’s homes. Much of this data is unavailable or inconclusive. Accordingly, it is difficult for the Company to determine which suppliers were used by these contractors, which suppliers provided defective Chinese drywall during the time period at issue or what amounts may have been purchased from such suppliers. As a result, it is difficult for the Company to determine which Beazer communities or particular homes had Chinese drywall installed without inspections and, the amount of additional liability, if any, is not reasonably estimable. Therefore, the outcome of inspections in process and potential future inspections or an unexpected increase in repair costs may require us to increase our warranty reserve in the future. In addition, the Company has been named as a defendant in a number of legal actions related to defective Chinese drywall (see Litigation below).

During the quarter ended December 31, 2011, we received an $11 million recovery related to water intrusion warranty and legal expenses incurred in prior years. We recognized this recovery as a reduction of home construction and land sales expenses.

As a result of our analyses, we adjust our estimated warranty liabilities. While we believe that our warranty reserves are adequate as of December 31, 2011, 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 (in thousands):

	Three Months Ended December 31,
	2011			2010
Balance at beginning of period	$	17,916		$	25,821
Accruals for warranties issued		1,487			874
Changes in liability related to warranties existing in prior periods		(107	)		(2,000	)
Payments made		(1,882	)		(3,052	)
Balance at end of period	$	17,414		$	21,643

Litigation

On June 3, 2009, Beazer Homes Corp. 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. We believe that the claims asserted in these actions are governed by home warranties or are without merit. Accordingly, the Company intends to vigorously defend against these actions. Furthermore, the Company has offered to repair all Beazer homes affected by defective Chinese drywall pursuant to a repair protocol that has been adopted by the multidistrict litigation court, including those homes involved in litigation. To date, nearly all of affected Beazer homeowners have accepted the Company’s offer to repair. The Company also continues to pursue recovery against responsible subcontractors, drywall suppliers and drywall manufacturers for its repair costs.

On March 14, 2011, the Company and several subsidiaries were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed by Flagstar Bank, FSB in the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan. The complaint demands approximately $5 million to recover purported losses in connection with 57 residential mortgage loan transactions under theories of breach of contract, fraud/intentional misrepresentation and other similar theories of recovery. On November 21, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint. Though the court has not yet ruled on that motion, the amended complaint would add 16 loans to plaintiff’s claims and would raise the total demand to approximately $8.7 million. We believe we have strong defenses to the claims on these individual loans and intend to vigorously defend the action. In addition, Beazer Mortgage Corporation (BMC) has received notices from other investors demanding that BMC indemnify them for losses suffered with respect to certain other mortgage loan transactions, largely alleging misrepresentations during the loan origination process. We are currently investigating these claims and are in communication with the investors. To date, including the mortgage loans that are the subject of the lawsuit, we have received active requests to repurchase fewer than 100 mortgage loans from various investors. As previously disclosed, we operated BMC from 1998 through February 2008 to offer mortgage financing to the buyers of our homes. BMC entered into various agreements with mortgage investors, pursuant to which BMC originated certain mortgage loans and ultimately sold those loans to investors. Underwriting decisions were not made by BMC but by the investors themselves or third-party service providers. While we have not been required to repurchase any mortgage loans, we have established an immaterial amount as a reserve for the repurchase of mortgage loans originated by BMC. We cannot rule out the potential for additional mortgage loan repurchase claims in the future, although, at this time, we do not believe that the exposure related to any such additional claims would be material to our consolidated financial position or results of operation. As of December 31, 2011, no liability has been recorded for any such additional claims as such exposure is not both probable and reasonably estimable.

On March 15, 2011, a shareholder derivative suit was filed by certain funds affiliated with Teamster Local 237 in the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia against certain officers and directors of the Company and the Company’s compensation consultants. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties involving decisions regarding executive compensation; specifically that compensation awarded to certain Company executives for the 2010 fiscal year were improper in light of the negative subsequent advisory “say on pay” vote by shareholders at the Company’s 2011 stockholders meeting. On September 16, 2011, the court entered an order and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all counts of the complaint. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal and the briefing schedule has not yet been finalized.

We cannot predict or determine the timing or final outcome of the lawsuits or the effect that any adverse findings or adverse 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 has 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 million has been paid as of December 31, 2011. 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. The two Orders 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.

We believe that we have significant defenses to the alleged violations and intend to contest the agency’s findings and the proposed fines. We are currently pursuing settlement discussions with the Department.

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 $16.7 million and $30.4 million in other liabilities related to litigation and other matters, excluding warranty, as of December 31, 2011 and September 30, 2011, respectively. The amount accrued as of September 30, 2011 included $15.7 million related to the South Edge settlement obligation that was paid during the quarter ended December 31, 2011 (see Note 3 for additional information).

We had outstanding letters of credit and performance bonds of approximately $28.5 million and $165.6 million, respectively, at December 31, 2011 related principally to our obligations to local governments to construct roads and other improvements in various developments. Our outstanding letters of credit include $0.5 million relating to our land option contracts.