Note 4 - Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Note 4. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

We are party to numerous legal proceedings arising in the normal course of our business. While we cannot predict with certainty the outcomes of these matters, 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.

Text Messaging Claims

In April 2011, a third party vendor assisted us in promoting a targeted “0% financing on used vehicles” advertising campaign during a limited sale period. The marketing included sending a “Short Message Service” communication to cell phones (a “text message”) of our previous customers. The message was sent to over 50,000 cell phones in 14 states. The message indicated that the recipients could “Opt-Out” of receiving any further messages by replying “STOP,” but, due to a technical error, some recipients who responded requesting to be unsubscribed nonetheless may have received a follow-on message.

On or about April 21, 2011, a Complaint for Damages, Injunctive and Declaratory Relief was filed against us (Kevin McClintic vs. Lithia Motors, 11-2-14632-4 SEA, Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County) alleging the text messaging activity violated State of Washington anti-texting and consumer protection laws and the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and seeking statutory damages of $500 for each violation, trebled, plus injunctive relief and attorney fees. The suit seeks class action designation for all similarly situated entities and individuals. The suit has been removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle.

On or about July 5, 2011, a complaint was filed alleging nearly identical claims, also seeking class action designation (Dan McLaren vs. Lithia Motors, Civil # 11-810, United States District Court of Oregon, Portland Division). This case was stayed pending the outcome of the McClintic matter by order of the court on or about October 11, 2011. The class representative in the McLaren case also attempted to intervene in the McClintic case. This intervention motion was denied on October 19, 2011.

We participated in a mediation of the McClintic case and have entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, which is subject to court approval. Under this settlement agreement, we agreed to pay a total of $2.5 million, all of which such amounts will be reimbursed by the vendor pursuant to contractual indemnification. No assurances can be given that the court will approve the settlement.

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 for (i) 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 District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class without addressing either the merits of the claims or the size of the class or classes. 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.