As of September 30, 2011, our warranty reserves include an estimate for the repair of less than 60 homes in Florida where certain of our subcontractors installed defective Chinese drywall in homes that were delivered during our 2006 and 2007 fiscal years. As of September 30, 2011, we have completed repairs on approximately 92% of these homes and we are in the process of repairing all of the remaining homes that we have been given permission to repair. We continue to inspect additional homes in order to determine whether they also contain the defective Chinese drywall. Like most major homebuilders, we contract for many of our construction activities on a turnkey basis, including the purchase and installation of drywall. Therefore, with few exceptions, our contractors purchased the drywall from independent suppliers, and delivered and installed this drywall into Beazer’s homes. Much of this data is unavailable or inconclusive. Accordingly, it is difficult for the Company to determine which suppliers were used by these contractors, which suppliers provided defective Chinese drywall during the time period at issue or what amounts may have been purchased from such suppliers. As a result, it is difficult for the Company to determine which Beazer communities or particular homes had Chinese drywall installed without inspections and, the amount of additional liability, if any, is not reasonably estimable. Therefore, the outcome of inspections in process and potential future inspections or an unexpected increase in repair costs may require us to increase our warranty reserve in the future. In addition, the Company has been named as a defendant in a number of legal actions related to defective Chinese drywall (see Other Litigation below).

As a result of our analyses, we adjust our estimated warranty liabilities. While we believe that our warranty reserves are adequate as of September 30, 2011, historical data and trends may not accurately predict actual warranty costs or future developments could lead to a significant change in the reserve. Our warranty reserves are as follows (in thousands):


	Fiscal Year Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2009

Balance at beginning of period	$	25,821		$	30,100		$	40,822
Accruals for warranties issued		5,665			6,827			7,543
Changes in liability related to warranties existing in prior periods		(2,790	)		3,308			(3,294	)
Payments made		(10,780	)		(14,414	)		(14,971	)

Balance at end of period	$	17,916		$	25,821		$	30,100

South Edge Litigation

During fiscal 2008, the administrative agent for the lenders of one of our unconsolidated joint ventures, South Edge, filed individual lawsuits against some of the joint venture members and certain of those members’ parent companies (including the Company), seeking to recover damages under completion guarantees, among other claims. As discussed in Note 3, South Edge was the subject of an involuntary bankruptcy petition filed in December 2010. During fiscal 2011, the Company and one of its subsidiaries became parties to a settlement among the administrative agent for the lenders to South Edge (the Administrative Agent), certain of the lenders to South Edge, and certain of the other South Edge members and their respective parent companies (together with the Company and its subsidiary, the Participating Members). On October 26, 2011, the bankruptcy court approved the South Edge plan of reorganization including the settlement agreement.

Pursuant to the agreement, the Company would pay to the lenders an amount between approximately $15.7 million and $17.2 million, depending on certain contingencies including the extent to which infrastructure development funds already pledged to the Administrative Agent can be applied to the Participating Members’ obligations as set forth under the proposed Plan. In addition to these amounts, the Company will be responsible for its pro rata share of various fees, expenses and charges of the administrative agent for the lenders, the lenders and the Chapter 11 trustee, and to pay its share of certain allowed general unsecured claims in the South Edge bankruptcy case. As previously disclosed in Note 3, as of September 30, 2011, $15.7 million has been recorded in Other Liabilities which is net of the $1.5 million we paid and is currently held in escrow related to our South Edge joint venture.

Under the agreement, the Company anticipates that one of its subsidiaries would acquire its share of the land previously owned by South Edge as a result of a bankruptcy court-approved disposition of the land to a newly created entity in which such subsidiary would expect to be a member and which would satisfy the obligations secured by the liens of the Administrative Agent and the lenders on the land. Matters related to this litigation are more fully discussed in Note 3.

Other Litigation

Homeowners Class Action Lawsuits and Multi-Plaintiff Lawsuit. A putative class action was filed on April 8, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Salisbury Division, against Beazer Homes, U.S.A., Inc., Beazer Homes Corp. and Beazer Mortgage Corporation (BMC). The Complaint alleges that Beazer violated the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act (RESPA) and North Carolina Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 by (1) improperly requiring homebuyers to use Beazer-owned mortgage and settlement services as part of a down payment assistance program, and (2) illegally increasing the cost of homes and settlement services sold by Beazer Homes Corp. On September 2, 2011, the court entered a final judgment and order approving a class settlement in which the Company and all other defendants did not admit any liability. The settling class consists of all persons who purchased a home from Beazer in North Carolina, closed on the home purchase between August 1, 2002 and August 31, 2011, and received seller-funded down payment assistance as part of the transaction. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company has made a payment that is not material to the Company’s financial position or results of operations and which will be partially funded by insurance proceeds.

On June 3, 2009, Beazer Homes Corp. was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Lee County, State of Florida, filed by Bryson and Kimberly Royal, the owners of one of our homes in our Magnolia Lakes’ community in Ft. Myers, Florida. The complaint names the Company and certain distributors and suppliers of drywall and was on behalf of the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated owners of homes in Magnolia Lakes or alternatively in the State of Florida. The plaintiffs allege that the Company built their homes with defective drywall, manufactured in China, that contains sulfur compounds that allegedly corrode certain metals and that are allegedly capable of harming the health of individuals. Plaintiffs allege physical and economic damages and seek legal and equitable relief, medical monitoring and attorney’s fees. This case has been transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to an order from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In addition, the Company has been named in other multi-plaintiff complaints filed in the multidistrict litigation. We believe that the claims asserted in these actions are governed by home warranties or are without merit. Accordingly, the Company intends to vigorously defend against these actions. Furthermore, the Company has offered to repair all Beazer homes affected by defective Chinese drywall pursuant to a repair protocol that has been adopted by the multidistrict litigation court, including those homes involved in litigation. To date, nearly all of affected Beazer homeowners have accepted the Company’s offer to repair. The Company also continues to pursue recovery against responsible subcontractors, drywall suppliers and drywall manufacturers for its repair costs.

On March 14, 2011, the Company and several subsidiaries were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed by Flagstar Bank, FSB in the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan. The complaint demands approximately $5 million to recover purported losses in connection with 57 residential mortgage loan transactions under theories of breach of contract, fraud/intentional misrepresentation and other similar theories of recovery. We believe we have strong defenses to the claims on these individual loans and intend to vigorously defend the action. In addition, BMC has received notices from other investors demanding that BMC indemnify them for losses suffered with respect to certain other mortgage loan transactions, largely alleging misrepresentations during the loan origination process. We are currently investigating these claims and are in communication with the investors. To date, including the mortgage loans that are the subject of the lawsuit, we have received requests to repurchase fewer than 100 mortgage loans from various investors. As previously disclosed, we operated BMC from 1998 through February 2008 to offer mortgage financing to the buyers of our homes. BMC entered into various agreements with mortgage investors, pursuant to which BMC originated certain mortgage loans and ultimately sold those loans to investors. Underwriting decisions were not made by BMC but by the investors themselves or third-party service providers. While we have not been required to repurchase any mortgage loans, we have established an immaterial amount as a reserve for the repurchase of mortgage loans originated by BMC. We cannot rule out the potential for additional mortgage loan repurchase claims in the future, although, at this time, we do not believe that the exposure related to any such additional claims would be material to our consolidated financial position or results of operation. As of September 30, 2011, no liability has been recorded for any such additional claims as such exposure is not both probable and reasonably estimable.

On March 15, 2011, a shareholder derivative suit was filed by certain funds affiliated with Teamster Local 237 in the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia against certain officers and directors of the Company and the Company’s compensation consultants. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties involving decisions regarding executive compensation; specifically that compensation awarded to certain Company executives for the 2010 fiscal year were improper in light of the negative subsequent advisory “say on pay” vote by shareholders at the Company’s 2011 stockholders meeting. On September 16, 2011, the court entered an order and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all counts of the complaint. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal.

We cannot predict or determine the timing or final outcome of the lawsuits or the effect that any adverse findings or adverse determinations in the pending lawsuits may have on us. In addition, an estimate of possible loss or range of loss, if any, cannot presently be made with respect to certain of the above pending matters. An unfavorable determination in any of the pending lawsuits could result in the payment by us of substantial monetary damages which may not be fully covered by insurance. Further, the legal costs associated with the lawsuits and the amount of time required to be spent by management and the Board of Directors on these matters, even if we are ultimately successful, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Other Matters

As disclosed in our 2009 Form 10-K, on July 1, 2009, the Company announced that it has resolved the criminal and civil investigations by the United States Attorney’s Office in the Western District of North Carolina (the U.S. Attorney) and other state and federal agencies concerning matters that were the subject of the independent investigation, initiated in April 2007 by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors (the Investigation) and concluded in May 2008. Under the terms of a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), the Company’s liability for fiscal 2011 and each of the fiscal years after 2010 through a portion of fiscal 2014 (unless extended as previously described in our 2009 Form 10-K) will also be equal to 4% of the Company’s adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the DPA). The total amount of such obligations will be dependent on several factors; however, the maximum liability under the DPA and other settlement agreements discussed above will not exceed $55.0 million of which $16 million has been paid as of September 30, 2011. As of September 30, 2010, we had accrued approximately $1 million for future obligations under the DPA and HUD agreements which was paid in November 2010. Based on our adjusted EBITDA for fiscal 2011, we do not have an accrual related to these future obligations as of September 30, 2011. Positive adjusted EBITDA in future years will require us to incur additional expense in the future.

In 2006, we received two Administrative Orders issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The Orders allege certain violations of wetlands disturbance permits. The two Orders assess proposed fines of $630,000 and $678,000, respectively. We have met with the Department to discuss their concerns on the two affected communities and have requested hearings on both matters. We believe that we have significant defenses to the alleged violations and intend to contest the agency’s findings and the proposed fines. We are currently pursuing settlement discussions with the Department.

We and certain of our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in various claims, complaints and other legal actions, most relating to construction defects, moisture intrusion and product liability. Certain of the liabilities resulting from these actions are covered in whole or part by insurance. In our opinion, based on our current assessment, the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

We have accrued $30.4 million and $18.0 million in other liabilities related to all of the above matters as of September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

We had outstanding letters of credit and performance bonds of approximately $28.9 million and $174.7 million, respectively, at September 30, 2011 related principally to our obligations to local governments to construct roads and other improvements in various developments. Our outstanding letters of credit include $1.0 million relating to our land option contracts discussed in Note 4.