8. Contingencies

     Legal and Other Proceedings:

          Sonic is a defendant in the matter of Galura, et al. v. Sonic Automotive, Inc., a private civil action filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida. In this action, originally filed on December 30, 2002, the plaintiffs allege that Sonic and its Florida dealerships sold an antitheft protection product in a deceptive or otherwise illegal manner, and further sought representation on behalf of any customer of any of Sonic’s Florida dealerships who purchased the antitheft protection product since December 30, 1998. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of this class of customers. In June 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for certification of the requested class of customers, but the court has made no finding to date regarding actual liability in this lawsuit. Sonic subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court’s class certification ruling with the Florida Court of Appeals. In April 2007, the Florida Court of Appeals affirmed a portion of the trial court’s class certification, and overruled a portion of the trial court’s class certification. In November 2009, the Florida trial court granted Summary Judgment in Sonic’s favor against Plaintiff Enrique Galura, and his claim has been dismissed. Marisa Hazelton’s claim is still pending. At a mediation held February 4, 2011, Sonic reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle this class action lawsuit, and a settlement agreement was signed by the parties on March 1, 2011. The settlement agreement was approved by the Florida state court on June 24, 2011. The terms of the approved settlement will not have a material adverse effect on Sonic’s future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

          Several private civil actions have been filed against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and several of its dealership subsidiaries that purport to represent classes of customers as potential plaintiffs and made allegations that certain products sold in the finance and insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise illegal manner. One of these private civil actions was filed on November 15, 2004 in South Carolina state court, York County Court of Common Pleas, against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and 10 of Sonic’s South Carolina subsidiaries. The plaintiffs in that lawsuit were Misty J. Owens, James B. Wright, Vincent J. Astey and Joseph Lee Williams, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class. The group of plaintiffs’ attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the South Carolina lawsuit also filed another private civil class action lawsuit against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and 3 of its subsidiaries on February 14, 2005 in state court in North Carolina, Lincoln County Superior Court, which similarly sought certification of a multi-state class of plaintiffs and alleged that certain products sold in the finance and insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise illegal manner. The plaintiffs in this North Carolina lawsuit were Robert Price, Carolyn Price, Marcus Cappeletti and Kathy Cappeletti, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class. The South Carolina state court action and the North Carolina state court action have since been consolidated into a single proceeding in private arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. On November 12, 2008, claimants in the consolidated arbitration filed a Motion for Class Certification as a national class action including all of the states in which Sonic operates dealerships. Claimants are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of this class of customers. The parties have briefed and argued the issue of class certification.

          On July 19, 2010, the Arbitrator issued a Partial Final Award on Class Certification, certifying a class which includes all customers who, on or after November 15, 2000, purchased or leased from a Sonic dealership a vehicle with the Etch product as part of the transaction, but not including customers who purchased or leased such vehicles from a Sonic dealership in Florida. The Partial Final Award on Class Certification is not a final decision on the merits of the action. The merits of Claimants’ assertions and potential damages will still have to be proven through the remainder of the arbitration. The Arbitrator stayed the Arbitration for thirty days to allow either party to petition a court of competent jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the award. Sonic will seek review of the class certification ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction and will continue to press its argument that this action is not suitable for a class-based arbitration. On July 22, 2010, the plaintiffs in this consolidated arbitration filed a Motion to Confirm the Arbitrator’s Partial Final Award on Class Certification in state court in North Carolina, Lincoln County Superior Court. On August 17, 2010, Sonic filed to remove this North Carolina state court action to federal court, and simultaneously filed a Petition to Vacate the Arbitrator’s Partial Final Award on Class Certification, with both filings made in the United Stated District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Sonic intends to continue its vigorous defense of this arbitration and to assert all available defenses. However, an adverse resolution of this arbitration could result in the payment of significant costs and damages, which could have a material adverse effect on Sonic’s future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. We are currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, or a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amount accrued, for this litigation matter.

          Sonic is involved, and expects to continue to be involved, in numerous legal and administrative proceedings arising out of the conduct of its business, including regulatory investigations and private civil actions brought by plaintiffs purporting to represent a potential class or for which a class has been certified. Although Sonic vigorously defends itself in all legal and administrative proceedings, the outcomes of pending and future proceedings arising out of the conduct of Sonic’s business, including litigation with customers, employment related lawsuits, contractual disputes, class actions, purported class actions and actions brought by governmental authorities, cannot be predicted with certainty. An unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on Sonic’s business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or prospects. Included in other accrued liabilities at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 was $5.8 million and $9.1 million, respectively, in reserves that Sonic has provided for pending proceedings. Except as reflected in such reserves, we are currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, or a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, for pending proceedings.

     Guarantees and Indemnification Obligations:

          In connection with franchise dispositions, certain of Sonic’s dealership subsidiaries have assigned or sublet to the buyer its interests in real property leases associated with such dealerships. In general, Sonic’s dealership subsidiaries retain responsibility for the performance of certain obligations under such leases, including rent payments and repairs to leased property upon termination of the lease, to the extent that the assignee or sub-lessee does not perform. In the event the sub-lessees do not perform under their obligations Sonic remains liable for the lease payments. The total amount relating to this risk was approximately $106.2 million as of December 31, 2010. See Sonic’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 for further discussion.

          In accordance with the terms of agreements entered into for the sale of Sonic’s franchises, Sonic generally agrees to indemnify the buyer from certain exposure and costs arising subsequent to the date of sale, including environmental exposure and exposure resulting from the breach of representations or warranties made in accordance with the agreement. While Sonic’s exposure with respect to environmental remediation and repairs is difficult to quantify, Sonic estimates that the maximum exposure associated with these general indemnifications if the counterparties failed to perform under their contractual obligations was approximately $3.1 million and $12.8 million at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. These indemnifications expire within a period of one to two years following the date of sale. The estimated fair value of these indemnifications was not material. Sonic also guarantees the floor plan commitments of its 50% owned joint venture, the amount of which was $4.5 million at both June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.