Commitments And Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Dec. 30, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments And Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Briggs & Stratton is subject to various unresolved legal actions that arise in the normal course of its business. These actions typically relate to product liability (including asbestos-related liability), patent and trademark matters, and disputes with customers, suppliers, distributors and dealers, competitors and employees.

On March 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada (Robert Foster et al. v. Sears Canada, Inc. et al., Docket No. 766-2010) against the Company and other engine and lawnmower manufacturers alleging that the horsepower labels on the products they purchased were inaccurate and that the Company conspired with other engine and lawnmower manufacturers to conceal the true horsepower of these engines. On May 3, 2010, other plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Montreal Superior Court in Canada (Eric Liverman, et al. v. Deere & Company, et al., Docket No. 500-06-000507-109). Both Canadian complaints contain allegations and seek relief under Canadian law similar to the litigation filed in the U.S. regarding horsepower labeling which was settled and approved by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on August 26, 2010. The Company is evaluating the Canadian complaints and has not yet filed an answer or other responsive pleading to either one.

On May 14, 2010, the Company notified retirees and certain retirement eligible employees of various changes to the Company-sponsored retiree medical plans. The purpose of the amendments was to better align the plans offered to both hourly and salaried retirees. On August 16, 2010, a putative class of retirees who retired prior to August 1, 2006 and the United Steel Workers filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Merrill, Weber, Carpenter, et al; United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC v. Briggs & Stratton Corporation; Group Insurance Plan of Briggs & Stratton Corporation; and Does 1 through 20, Docket No. 10-C-0700), contesting the Company's right to make these changes. In addition to a request for class certification, the complaint seeks an injunction preventing the alleged unilateral termination or reduction in insurance coverage to the class of retirees, a permanent injunction preventing defendants from ever making changes to the retirees' insurance coverage, restitution with interest (if applicable) and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint and believes the changes are within its rights. On April 21, 2011, the district court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs filed a motion with the court to reconsider its order on May 17, 2011, and on August 24, 2011 the court granted the motion and vacated the dismissal of the case. The Company then filed a motion with the court to appeal its decision directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, but the court denied this motion on February 29, 2012. On October 9, 2012 the court granted the parties' unopposed motion for class certification. Discovery is underway in the case.

Although it is not reasonably possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these unresolved legal actions or the range of possible loss, the Company believes the unresolved legal actions will not have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows.