XML 87 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Note 7 - Commitments and Contingencies
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]
(7)           Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

We lease certain facilities under non-cancelable operating and capital leases. These leases expire at various dates through 2066. Certain lease commitments contain fixed payment increases at predetermined intervals over the life of the lease, while other lease commitments are subject to escalation clauses of an amount equal to the increase in the cost of living based on the “Consumer Price Index - U.S. Cities Average - All Items for all Urban Consumers” published by the U.S. Department of Labor, or a substantially equivalent regional index. Lease expense related to operating leases is recognized on a straight-line basis over the life of the lease.

The minimum lease payments under our operating and capital leases after December 31, 2012 are as follows (in thousands):

Year Ending December 31,
     
2013
  $ 17,188  
2014
    15,749  
2015
    14,317  
2016
    12,948  
2017
    10,666  
Thereafter
    72,968  
Total minimum lease payments
    143,836  
Less: sublease rentals
    (7,785 )
    $ 136,051  

Rent expense, net of sublease income, for all operating leases was $15.2 million, $13.3 million and $12.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. These amounts are included as a component of selling, general and administrative expenses in our Consolidated Statements of Operations.

In connection with dispositions of dealerships, we occasionally assign or sublet our interests in any real property leases associated with such dealerships to the purchaser. We often retain responsibility for the performance of certain obligations under such leases to the extent that the assignee or sublessee does not perform. Additionally, we may remain subject to the terms of any guarantees and have correlating indemnification rights against the assignee or sublessee in the event of non-performance, as well as certain other defenses. We may also be called upon to perform other obligations under these leases, such as environmental remediation of the premises or repairs upon termination of the lease. We currently have no reason to believe that we will be called upon to perform any such services; however, there can be no assurance that any future performance required by us under these leases will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Certain of our facilities where a lease obligation still exists have been vacated for business reasons. In these instances, we make efforts to find qualified tenants to sublease the facilities and assume financial responsibility. However, due to the specific nature and size of the facilities used in our dealerships, tenants are not always available. Liabilities have been accrued to reflect our estimate of future lease obligations. These amounts were not material to our Consolidated Statements of Operations during 2012, 2011 and 2010 and the amounts accrued at December 31, 2012 and 2011 were not material.

Capital Expenditures

Capital expenditures were $64.6 million, $31.7 million and $7.6 million for 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The increase in capital expenditures in 2012 compared to 2011 and 2011 compared to 2010 was related to improvements at certain of our store facilities, the purchase of previously leased facilities, the purchase of new store locations, replacement of equipment and construction of, and relocation to, a new headquarters building.

Many manufacturers provide assistance in the form of additional vehicle incentives if facilities meet image standards and requirements. We believe it is an attractive time to invest in certain internal initiatives that will generate additional manufacturer incentive payments, particularly from our domestic partners. Also, recently enacted tax law changes that accelerate deductions for capital expenditures have accelerated project timelines to ensure completion before the law expires.

In the event we undertake a significant capital commitment in the future, we expect to pay for the commitment out of existing cash balances, construction financing and borrowings on our credit facility. Upon completion of the projects, we would anticipate securing long-term financing and general borrowings from third party lenders for 70% to 90% of the amounts expended, although no assurances can be provided that these financings will be available to us in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us.

Charge-Backs for Various Contracts

We have recorded a liability of $13.5 million as of December 31, 2012 for our estimated contractual obligations related to potential charge-backs for vehicle service contracts, lifetime oil change contracts and other various insurance contracts that are terminated early by the customer. We estimate that the charge-backs will be paid out as follows (in thousands):

Year Ending December 31,
     
2013
  $ 7,540  
2014
    3,792  
2015
    1,553  
2016
    491  
2017
    118  
Thereafter
    10  
Total
  $ 13,504  

Lifetime Lube, Oil and Filter Contracts

In March 2009, we entered into a transaction related to existing lifetime lube, oil and filter contracts, in which we assumed the obligation to provide future services under the purchased contracts. As of December 31, 2012, we had a remaining balance of $4.0 million. We estimate the deferred revenue associated with this assumed obligation will be recognized as follows (in thousands):

Year Ending December 31,
     
2013
  $ 1,090  
2014
    850  
2015
    654  
2016
    488  
2017
    349  
Thereafter
    559  
Total
  $ 3,990  

We periodically evaluate the estimated future costs of these contracts and record a charge if future expected claim and cancellation costs exceed the deferred revenue to be recognized. In 2011 and 2010, our analysis indicated expected costs had increased as experience rates changed due to customers retaining their cars for longer periods of time compared to our historical experience. We recorded a charge of $1.0 million in both 2011 and 2010, as a component of cost of sales in our Consolidated Statements of Operations. As of December 31, 2012, we had a reserve balance of $4.0 million recorded as a component of accrued liabilities and other long-term liabilities on our Consolidates Balance Sheet.

We retain the obligation for lifetime lube, oil and filter service contracts sold to our customers and record deferred revenues related to these contracts. At the time of sale, we defer the full sale price and recognize the revenue based on the rate we expect future costs to be incurred. As of December 31, 2012, we had a deferred revenue balance of $33.9 million associated with these contracts and estimate the deferred revenue will be recognized as follows (in thousands):

Year Ending December 31,
     
2013
  $ 8,448  
2014
    5,839  
2015
    4,541  
2016
    3,547  
2017
    2,827  
Thereafter
    8,721  
Total
  $ 33,923  

Self-insurance Programs

We self-insure a portion of our property and casualty insurance, medical insurance and workers’ compensation insurance. A third-party is engaged to assist in estimating the loss exposure related to the self-retained portion of the risk associated with these insurances. Additionally, we analyze our historical loss and claims experience to estimate the loss exposure associated with these programs. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, we had liabilities associated with these programs of $12.4 million and $10.4 million, respectively, recorded as a component of accrued liabilities and other long-term liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Regulatory Compliance

We are subject to numerous state and federal regulations common in the automotive sector that cover retail transactions with customers and employment and trade practices. We do not anticipate that compliance with these regulations will have an adverse effect on our business, consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows, although such outcome is possible given the nature of our operations and the legal and regulatory environment affecting our business.

Litigation

We are party to numerous legal proceedings arising in the normal course of our business. Although we do not anticipate that the resolution of legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business or the proceedings described below will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows, we cannot predict this with certainty.

 Alaska Consumer Protection Act Claims

In December 2006, a suit was filed against us (Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc, et al, Case No. 3AN-06-13341 CI, and in April, 2007, a second case (Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc, et al, Case No. 3AN-06-4815 CI) (now consolidated)), in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Anchorage. In the suits, plaintiffs alleged that we, through our Alaska dealerships, engaged in three practices that purportedly violate Alaska consumer protection laws: (i) charging customers dealer fees and costs (including document preparation fees) not disclosed in the advertised price, (ii) failing to disclose the acquisition, mechanical and accident history of used vehicles or whether the vehicles were originally manufactured for sale in a foreign country, and (iii) engaging in deception, misrepresentation and fraud by providing to customers financing from third parties without disclosing that we receive a fee or discount for placing that loan (a “dealer reserve”). The suit seeks statutory damages of $500 for each violation (or three times plaintiff’s actual damages, whichever is greater), and attorney fees and costs and the plaintiffs sought class action certification.  Before and during the pendency of these suits, we engaged in settlement discussions with the State of Alaska through its Office of Attorney General with respect to the first two practices enumerated above. As a result of those discussions, we entered into a Consent Judgment subject to court approval and permitted potential class members to “opt-out” of the proposed settlement. Counsel for the plaintiffs attempted to intervene and, after various motions, hearings and an appeal to the state Court of Appeals, the Consent Judgment became final.   

Plaintiffs then filed a motion in November 2010 seeking certification of a class (i) for the 339 customers who “opted-out” of the state settlement, (ii) for those customers who did not qualify for recovery under the Consent Judgment but were allegedly eligible for recovery under the plaintiffs’ broader interpretation of the applicable statutes, and (iii) arguing that since the State’s suit against our dealerships did not address the loan fee/discount (dealer reserve) claim, for those customers who arranged their vehicle financing through us. On June 14, 2011, the Trial Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class without addressing either the merits of the claims or the size of the classes. Discovery in this case is ongoing. We intend to defend the claims vigorously and do not believe the novel “dealer reserve” claim has merit.

The ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of any of the matters could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.