13.

Subsequent Events

Commitments and Contingencies

On August 26, 2011 the Court denied all defendants motions to dismiss in the consolidated Richard action and the Plumbers action, and the Company filed its answer to the consolidated amended complaint on October 24, 2011. The parties have conducted limited discovery and participated in an initial settlement mediation on January 30, 2012, with additional sessions anticipated in the future. By agreement of the parties, no further discovery will take place until after the mediation process is exhausted. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims.

On September 23, 2011, the Company was served with a derivative complaint, captioned Grivich v. Dunham, et al., No. 11-2-03678-6 ("Grivich"), and filed in the Superior Court of Washington for Clark County. The plaintiff in this action is allegedly a current shareholder of the Company. The Company is a nominal defendant in this litigation. Plaintiff seeks to assert, on the Company's behalf, claims against Brian W. Dunham, Stephanie J. Welty, William R. Tagmyer, Keith R. Larson, Wayne B. Kingsley, Richard A. Roman, Michael C. Franson and Neil R. Thornton. The asserted basis of the claims is that defendants breached fiduciary duties to the Company between April 2, 2007 and the date of the Complaint. Plaintiff seeks to recover, on the Company's behalf, damages for losses caused by the alleged wrongdoing.

On October 14, 2011, another derivative complaint, captioned Richard v. Dunham, et al., No. 11-2-04080-5 ("Richard Deriv."), was filed in the Superior Court of Washington for Clark County. The plaintiff in this action is allegedly a current shareholder of the Company. The Company is a nominal defendant in this litigation. Plaintiff seeks to assert, on the Company's behalf, claims against Brian W. Dunham, Stephanie J. Welty, William R. Tagmyer, Keith R. Larson, Wayne B. Kingsley, Richard A. Roman, Michael C. Franson and Neil R. Thornton. The asserted basis of the claims is that defendants breached fiduciary duties to the Company between April 2, 2007 and the date of the Complaint. Plaintiff seeks to recover, on the Company's behalf, damages for losses caused by the alleged wrongdoing.

An amended complaint in the Ruggles action was filed on November 10, 2011, and the defendant responded to the complaint by filing a motion to dismiss, which motion is still pending. The derivative parties participated in the initial settlement mediation described above and will participate in any follow up sessions. It should also be noted that derivative claims by their nature do not seek to recover damages from the Company, but purport instead to seek to recover damages for the benefit of the Company. These cases are at a very early stage and, at this time, it is not possible to predict their outcome. Therefore, the Company has not accrued any charges related to them.

Amended and Restated Credit Agreement

On March 29, 2012 the Company entered into an amendment to the Company's current Amended and Restated Credit Agreement which is recorded as "Note payable to financial institution" on the balance sheet. A summary of the amendments is as follows:

•

Extended the expiration date to April 30, 2013;

•

Set aggregate commitments of the lenders at $115 million; and

•

Waived compliance with certain covenants and made certain changes in the definition, method of calculation and amounts of certain covenants.