Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

(9) Commitments and Contingencies

(a)Purchase Commitments. The Company enters into limited purchase commitments for the purchase of certain raw materials. Amounts committed under these programs were not significant as of March 31, 2012 or December 31, 2011.

As of March 31, 2012, the Company had outstanding commitments of approximately $14,200 for capital expenditures related to the construction of the Company's headquarters in Lexington, Kentucky.

(b) Antitrust Action. On January 5, 2007, a purported class action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division (Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, Inc., or the Antitrust Action).  The Antitrust Action alleges violations of federal antitrust law arising from the pricing of Tempur-Pedic mattress products by Tempur-Pedic North America and certain distributors.  The action alleges a class of all purchasers of Tempur-Pedic mattresses in the United States since January 5, 2003, and seeks damages and injunctive relief. Count Two of the complaint was dismissed by the court on June 25, 2007, based on a motion filed by the Company. Following a decision issued by the United States Supreme Court in Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. on June 28, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the remaining two counts of the Antitrust Action on July 10, 2007. On December 11, 2007, that motion was granted and, as a result, judgment was entered in favor of the Company and the plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed with prejudice. On December 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a “Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment,” which was fully briefed. On May 1, 2008, that motion was denied.  Jacobs appealed the dismissal of their claims, and the parties argued the appeal before the United States Circuit Court for the Eleventh Circuit on December 11, 2008.  The Court rendered an opinion favorable to the Company on December 2, 2010, affirming the trial court's refusal to allow Jacobs to alter or amend its pleadings and dismissing its claims.  Jacobs has subsequently petitioned the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for an “en banc” review of the three judge panel's ruling.  The Company continues to strongly believe that the Antitrust Action lacks merit, and intends to defend against the claims vigorously. Based on the findings of the court to date and an assessment of the Company's meritorious defenses, the Company believes that it is remote that it will incur a loss with respect to this matter. However, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the Antitrust Action at this time, and can give no assurance that these claims will not have a material adverse affect on the Company's financial position or results of operations.

(c) New York Attorney General. In December 2008, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, Antitrust Bureau (OAG) requested that the Company consider discontinuing its unilateral retail price policy (UPPL) in the State of New York, and informed the Company that it may bring an enforcement action against the Company under New York law if the Company chose not to do so. On March 29, 2010, the Office of the Attorney General filed suit in New York state court against the Company with respect to this matter. The complaint does not charge the Company with any violation of state or federal antitrust law; instead it claims the Company violated a 1975 New York state law which declares certain contractual provisions to be unenforceable and not actionable at law and seeks, among other things, a permanent injunction prohibiting the Company's UPPL as well as unspecified sums for restitution and disgorgement of profits. The Company responded to the complaint and also filed motions to dismiss and to obtain discovery. On September 28, 2010, the court heard various motions filed by the parties and took them under advisement. On January 14, 2011, the court denied the OAG's petition in full and granted the Company's motion to dismiss. The OAG filed an appeal on February 22, 2011. The Company believes that its UPPL complies with state and federal law and intends to continue to vigorously defend it in this matter. No claim for damages has been received by the Company. Based on the findings of the court to date and an assessment of the Company's meritorious defenses, the Company believes that it is remote that it will incur a loss with respect to this matter. However, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter at this time, and can give no assurance that these claims will not have a material adverse affect on the Company's financial position or results of operations.

The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings incidental to the operations of its business. The Company believes that the outcome of all such pending legal proceedings in the aggregate will not have a material adverse affect on its business, financial condition, liquidity, or operating results.