6.	CONTINGENCIES

The Company is involved in a number of legal proceedings concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of its business activities, and is periodically subject to governmental examinations (including by regulatory and tax authorities), and information gathering requests (collectively, "governmental examinations"). As of June 30, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant or was otherwise involved in numerous legal proceedings and governmental examinations in various jurisdictions, both in the United States and internationally.

The Company has recorded liabilities for certain of its outstanding legal proceedings and governmental examinations. A liability is accrued when it is both (a) probable that a loss with respect to the legal proceeding has occurred and (b) the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings and governmental examinations that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of the liability that has been previously accrued. These legal proceedings, as well as governmental examinations, involve various lines of business of the Company and a variety of claims (including, but not limited to, common law tort, contract, antitrust and consumer protection claims), some of which present novel factual allegations and/or unique legal theories. While some matters pending against the Company specify the damages claimed by the plaintiff, many seek a not-yet-quantified amount of damages or are at very early stages of the legal process. Even when the amount of damages claimed against the Company are stated, the claimed amount may be exaggerated and/or unsupported. As a result, it is not currently possible to estimate a range of possible loss beyond previously accrued liabilities relating to some matters including those described below. Such previously accrued liabilities may not represent the Company's maximum loss exposure. The legal proceedings and governmental examinations underlying the estimated range will change from time to time and actual results may vary significantly from the currently accrued liabilities.

Based on its current knowledge, and taking into consideration its litigation-related liabilities, the Company believes it is not a party to, nor is any of its properties the subject of, any pending legal proceeding or governmental examination other than the matters below, which are addressed individually, that would have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or liquidity. However, in light of the uncertainties involved in such matters, the ultimate outcome of a particular matter could be material to the Company's operating results for a particular period depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of the Company's income for that period. Costs associated with the litigation and settlements of legal matters are reported within General and Administrative Expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Brazil Joint Venture

In March 2001, Bernard Krone Indústria e Comércio de Máquinas Agrícolas Ltda. ("BK") filed suit against the Company in the Fourth Civil Court of Curitiba in the State of Paraná, Brazil. Because of the bankruptcy of BK, this proceeding is now pending before the Second Civil Court of Bankruptcies and Creditors Reorganization of Curitiba, State of Paraná (No. 232/99).

The case grows out of a joint venture agreement between BK and the Company related to marketing of RoadRailer trailers in Brazil and other areas of South America. When BK was placed into the Brazilian equivalent of bankruptcy late in 2000, the joint venture was dissolved. BK subsequently filed its lawsuit against the Company alleging that it was forced to terminate business with other companies because of the exclusivity and non-compete clauses purportedly found in the joint venture agreement. BK asserts damages, exclusive of any potentially court-imposed interest or inflation adjustments, of approximately R$20.8 million (Brazilian Reais) which is approximately $13.3 million U.S. dollars using current exchange rates. The amount of damages asserted in local currency by BK has not changed since 2001.

The Company answered the complaint in May 2001, denying any wrongdoing. The Company believes that the claims asserted by BK are without merit and the Company intends to vigorously defend its position. A bench (non-jury) trial was held on March 30, 2010 in Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. Neither the Company nor its Brazilian legal counsel has received any indication that a ruling will be forthcoming during the next several months. The Company believes that the resolution of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, liquidity or future results of operations; however, at this stage of the proceeding no assurances can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the case.

Intellectual Property

In October 2006, the Company filed a patent infringement suit against Vanguard National Corporation (“Vanguard”) regarding the Company’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,986,546 and 6,220,651 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Civil Action No. 4:06-cv-135). The Company amended the Complaint in April 2007. In May 2007, Vanguard filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint, along with Counterclaims seeking findings of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the subject patents. The Company filed a reply to Vanguard’s counterclaims in May 2007, denying any wrongdoing or merit to the allegations as set forth in the counterclaims. The case has currently been stayed by agreement of the parties while the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) undertakes a reexamination of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,986,546. In June 2010, the Patent Office notified the Company that the reexamination is complete and the Patent Office has reissued U.S. Patent No. 6,986,546 without cancelling any claims of the patent. The parties plan to petition the Court to lift the stay; however, it is unknown at this time when the petition to lift the stay may be filed or granted.

The Company believes that its claims against Vanguard have merit and that the claims asserted by Vanguard are without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position and intellectual property. The Company believes that the resolution of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, liquidity or future results of operations; however, at this stage of the proceeding, no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the case.

Environmental Disputes

In September 2003, the Company was noticed as a potentially responsible party (PRP) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) pertaining to the Motorola 52nd Street, Phoenix, Arizona Superfund Site (the “Superfund Site”) pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). PRPs include current and former owners and operators of facilities at which hazardous substances were allegedly disposed. The EPA’s allegation that the Company was a PRP arises out of the Company’s acquisition of a former branch facility located approximately five miles from the original Superfund Site. The Company acquired this facility in 1997, operated the facility until 2000, and sold the facility to a third party in 2002. In June 2010, the Company was contacted by the Roosevelt Irrigation District (“RID”) informing it that the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”) had approved a remediation plan in excess of $100 million for the RID portion of the Superfund Site, and demanded that the Company contribute to the cost of the plan or be named as a defendant in a CERCLA action to be filed in July 2010. The Company initiated settlement discussions with the RID and the ADEQ in July 2010 to provide a full release from the RID, and a covenant not-to-sue and contribution protection regarding the former branch property from the ADEQ, in exchange for payment from the Company. If the settlement is approved by all parties, it will prevent any third party from successfully bringing claims against the Company for environmental contamination relating to this former branch property. The Company has been awaiting approval from the ADEQ since the settlement was first proposed in July 2010. Based on preliminary communications from the RID and ADEQ in early 2011, the Company does not expect to receive a response regarding the approval of the settlement from the ADEQ for, at least, several additional months. Based upon the Company’s limited period of ownership of the former branch property, and the fact that it no longer owns the former branch property, it does not anticipate that the ADEQ will reject the proposed settlement, but no assurance can be given at this time as to the ADEQ’s response to the settlement proposal. The proposed settlement terms have been accrued and did not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations, and it believes that any ongoing proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

In January 2006, the Company received a letter from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources indicating that a site that the Company formerly owned near Charlotte, North Carolina has been included on the state's October 2005 Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites Priority List. The letter states that the Company was being notified in fulfillment of the state's “statutory duty” to notify those who own and those who at present are known to be responsible for each Site on the Priority List. No action is being requested from the Company at this time, and the Company has received no further notices or communications regarding this matter from the state of North Carolina. The Company does not expect that this designation will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.