(7) Contingencies In early February 2010, we received a letter from a California fastener supplier dated January 26, 2010. This letter threatened to sue us for our alleged violation of an exclusive distribution arrangement this supplier believes exists between our organizations. In addition, this supplier provided a press release and a video regarding the claim that they threatened to make public unless we agree to mediation of the claim. Shortly after receipt of this letter, we performed a preliminary internal review to understand (1) who this supplier was and (2) the nature of our relationship with this supplier. Based on that review, we determined that this supplier manufactures a niche type of fastener and that the total volume of purchases by us, from all suppliers, over the purported term of the alleged exclusivity arrangement of this niche type of fastener does not exceed $1 million. Following completion of our preliminary internal review, we requested additional information and documentation from the supplier. The supplier's response failed to provide the requested information and documentation. By letter dated February 26, 2010, we quantified for the supplier our total volume of purchases as discussed above and informed the supplier that we believed their claim was grossly exaggerated and completely unsupported. We have not received any direct response to our February 26 letter. On May 3, 2010, this supplier filed suit in Arkansas alleging damages. In response, we filed a motion to dismiss. It is too early to determine how this case will progress. Based on this information, we believe that the prospect that we will incur a material liability as a result of this claim is remote. While we are not required to disclose this matter under the rules of the SEC, we initially disclosed the existence of this threat in February 2010 as we believed that disclosure was prudent due to the alleged amount ($180 million) of the claim and the threat to make these allegations public. In July of 2010, we received a letter f