CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
May 28, 2011
CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES Legal Contingencies From time to time, the Company is subject to lawsuits, investigations and disputes (some of which involve substantial claimed amounts) arising out of the conduct of its business, including matters relating to commercial transactions, product liability, intellectual property and other matters. Items included in these other matters are discussed below. The Company believes recorded reserves in its Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements are adequate in light of the probable and reasonably estimable outcomes of the items discussed below and other lawsuits, investigations and disputes arising out of the conduct of the Company's business. Any recorded liabilities were not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operation or liquidity and the Company does not currently believe that any pending claims or litigation, including those identified below, will materially affect its financial position, results of operation or liquidity. Donaldson On May 15, 2009, Donaldson Company, Inc. (“Donaldson”) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that certain “ChannelFlow®” engine/mobile filters manufactured and sold by a subsidiary of the Company infringe one or more patents held by Donaldson. Through this lawsuit Donaldson seeks various remedies, including injunctive relief and monetary damages of an unspecified amount. Management believes that the products in question do not infringe the asserted patents and that such patents are invalid. The Company is vigorously defending the action. Antitrust/Qui Tam On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that virtually every major North American engine filter manufacturer, including the Company's subsidiary, Baldwin Filters, Inc. (the “Defendant Group”), engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket filters. This suit is a purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the Defendant Group. Parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs against the Defendant Group in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. In addition, the Attorney General of the State of Florida and the County of Suffolk, New York have filed complaints against the Defendant Group based on these same allegations, and the Attorney General of the State of Washington requested various documents, information and cooperation, which the Company has agreed to provide. In late 2010, William Burch, a former employee of two other defendants in the Defendant Group, brought an action under the United States False Claims Act and similar state statutes on behalf of the governments of the United States and approximately twenty individual states against the Defendant Group, based on these same allegations (the "Qui Tam Action"). On March 1, 2011, Mr. Burch voluntarily dismissed Baldwin Filters, Inc. from this action, without prejudice, based on certain representations by Baldwin. As such, Baldwin Filters, Inc. is no longer a defendant in the Qui Tam Action. Finally, the Company understands that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) was investigating the allegations raised in these suits and issued subpoenas in connection with that investigation. The Company was not contacted by the DOJ in connection with the DOJ investigation and was not the subject of any subpoena. Public reports indicate that the DOJ officially closed its investigation in January 2010 and took no action against any filter manufacturer. All of the U.S cases, including the actions brought by and/or on behalf of governmental entities, have been consolidated into a single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. The Company believes all of these lawsuits and the claims made therein to be without merit and is vigorously defending them. In response to a request by the DOJ, the District Court issued an order on April 14, 2011, staying the proceedings for 90 days, during which time the Company understands the DOJ is investigating potential wrongdoing by persons unaffiliated with the Company or any member of the Defendant Group. TransWeb/3M On May 21, 2010, 3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties (“3M”) brought a lawsuit against TransWeb in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that certain TransWeb products infringe certain 3M patents. Shortly after receiving service of process in this litigation, TransWeb filed its own complaint against 3M in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking a declaratory judgment that the asserted patents are invalid and that the products in question do not infringe. 3M withdrew its Minnesota action, and the parties are currently litigating the matter in New Jersey. The litigation in question was filed and underway before the Company acquired TransWeb in December 2010, but the Company assumed the risk of this litigation as a result of the acquisition. The Company intends to vigorously defend the action and pursue related claims. In this regard, on June 3, 2011, TransWeb filed a Second Amended Complaint against 3M, (i) seeking declaratory judgment that the asserted 3M patents are invalid, the TransWeb products in question do not infringe, and the 3M patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by 3M in obtaining the patents, (ii) alleging patent infringement by 3M of a patent held by TransWeb, and (iii) alleging antitrust violations by 3M in connection with the personal respirator market. The Company acquired TransWeb in December 2010 (see Note 2). Of the base purchase price, the Company withheld payment of $17,000 pending resolution of the 3M litigation, which funds may be used by the Company in connection with the same. Any litigation related amounts incurred in excess of the amount withheld will be expensed and paid by the Company. The Company currently does not anticipate total litigation related amounts to exceed the amount withheld. During the quarter and six months ended May 28, 2011, the Company applied legal charges of $1,165 and $1,924, respectively, against the withheld payment, leaving a remaining balance of $15,076. At May 28, 2011, $3,748 is included in Other accrued liabilities (see Note 7) and $11,328 is included in Other long-term liabilities in the accompanying Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets. Other Additionally, the Company is party to various proceedings relating to environmental issues. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and/or other responsible state agencies have designated the Company as a potentially responsible party, along with other companies, in remedial activities for the cleanup of waste sites under the federal Superfund statute. Although it is not certain what future environmental claims, if any, may be asserted, the Company currently believes that its potential liability for known environmental matters is not material. However, environmental and related remediation costs are difficult to quantify for a number of reasons, including the number of parties involved, the difficulty in determining the nature and extent of the contamination at issue, the length of time remediation may require, the complexity of the environmental regulation and the continuing advancement of remediation technology. Applicable federal law may impose joint and several liability on each potentially responsible party for the cleanup. In addition to the matters cited above, the Company is involved in legal actions arising in the normal course of business. The Company records provisions with respect to identified claims or lawsuits when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Claims and lawsuits are reviewed quarterly and provisions are taken or adjusted to reflect the status of a particular matter. No such provisions have been taken in respect of the Donaldson, antitrust or TransWeb legal proceedings referred to above. Other Contingencies In the event of a change in control of the Company, termination benefits are likely to be required for certain executive officers and other employees

CONTINGENCIES

Legal Contingencies

From time to time, the Company is subject to lawsuits, investigations and disputes (some of which involve substantial claimed amounts) arising out of the conduct of its business, including matters relating to commercial transactions, product liability, intellectual property and other matters. Items included in these other matters are discussed below. The Company believes recorded reserves in its Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements are adequate in light of the probable and reasonably estimable outcomes of the items discussed below and other lawsuits, investigations and disputes arising out of the conduct of the Company's business. Any recorded liabilities were not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operation or liquidity and the Company does not currently believe that any pending claims or litigation, including those identified below, will materially affect its financial position, results of operation or liquidity.

Donaldson

On May 15, 2009, Donaldson Company, Inc. (“Donaldson”) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that certain “ChannelFlow®” engine/mobile filters manufactured and sold by a subsidiary of the Company infringe one or more patents held by Donaldson. Through this lawsuit Donaldson seeks various remedies, including injunctive relief and monetary damages of an unspecified amount. Management believes that the products in question do not infringe the asserted patents and that such patents are invalid. The Company is vigorously defending the action.

Antitrust/Qui Tam

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that virtually every major North American engine filter manufacturer, including the Company's subsidiary, Baldwin Filters, Inc. (the “Defendant Group”), engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket filters. This suit is a purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the Defendant Group. Parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs against the Defendant Group in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada.

In addition, the Attorney General of the State of Florida and the County of Suffolk, New York have filed complaints against the Defendant Group based on these same allegations, and the Attorney General of the State of Washington requested various documents, information and cooperation, which the Company has agreed to provide.

In late 2010, William Burch, a former employee of two other defendants in the Defendant Group, brought an action under the United States False Claims Act and similar state statutes on behalf of the governments of the United States and approximately twenty individual states against the Defendant Group, based on these same allegations (the "Qui Tam Action"). On March 1, 2011, Mr. Burch voluntarily dismissed Baldwin Filters, Inc. from this action, without prejudice, based on certain representations by Baldwin. As such, Baldwin Filters, Inc. is no longer a defendant in the Qui Tam Action.

Finally, the Company understands that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) was investigating the allegations raised in these suits and issued subpoenas in connection with that investigation. The Company was not contacted by the DOJ in connection with the DOJ investigation and was not the subject of any subpoena. Public reports indicate that the DOJ officially closed its investigation in January 2010 and took no action against any filter manufacturer.

All of the U.S cases, including the actions brought by and/or on behalf of governmental entities, have been consolidated into a single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. The Company believes all of these lawsuits and the claims made therein to be without merit and is vigorously defending them.

In response to a request by the DOJ, the District Court issued an order on April 14, 2011, staying the proceedings for 90 days, during which time the Company understands the DOJ is investigating potential wrongdoing by persons unaffiliated with the Company or any member of the Defendant Group.

TransWeb/3M

On May 21, 2010, 3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties (“3M”) brought a lawsuit against TransWeb in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that certain TransWeb products infringe certain 3M patents. Shortly after receiving service of process in this litigation, TransWeb filed its own complaint against 3M in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking a declaratory judgment that the asserted patents are invalid and that the products in question do not infringe. 3M withdrew its Minnesota action, and the parties are currently litigating the matter in New Jersey. The litigation in question was filed and underway before the Company acquired TransWeb in December 2010, but the Company assumed the risk of this litigation as a result of the acquisition. The Company intends to vigorously defend the action and pursue related claims. In this regard, on June 3, 2011, TransWeb filed a Second Amended Complaint against 3M, (i) seeking declaratory judgment that the asserted 3M patents are invalid, the TransWeb products in question do not infringe, and the 3M patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by 3M in obtaining the patents, (ii) alleging patent infringement by 3M of a patent held by TransWeb, and (iii) alleging antitrust violations by 3M in connection with the personal respirator market. The Company acquired TransWeb in December 2010 (see Note 2). Of the base purchase price, the Company withheld payment of $17,000 pending resolution of the 3M litigation, which funds may be used by the Company in connection with the same. Any litigation related amounts incurred in excess of the amount withheld will be expensed and paid by the Company. The Company currently does not anticipate total litigation related amounts to exceed the amount withheld. During the quarter and six months ended May 28, 2011, the Company applied legal charges of $1,165 and $1,924, respectively, against the withheld payment, leaving a remaining balance of $15,076. At May 28, 2011, $3,748 is included in Other accrued liabilities (see Note 7) and $11,328 is included in Other long-term liabilities in the accompanying Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets.

Other

Additionally, the Company is party to various proceedings relating to environmental issues. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and/or other responsible state agencies have designated the Company as a potentially responsible party, along with other companies, in remedial activities for the cleanup of waste sites under the federal Superfund statute. Although it is not certain what future environmental claims, if any, may be asserted, the Company currently believes that its potential liability for known environmental matters is not material. However, environmental and related remediation costs are difficult to quantify for a number of reasons, including the number of parties involved, the difficulty in determining the nature and extent of the contamination at issue, the length of time remediation may require, the complexity of the environmental regulation and the continuing advancement of remediation technology. Applicable federal law may impose joint and several liability on each potentially responsible party for the cleanup.

In addition to the matters cited above, the Company is involved in legal actions arising in the normal course of business. The Company records provisions with respect to identified claims or lawsuits when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Claims and lawsuits are reviewed quarterly and provisions are taken or adjusted to reflect the status of a particular matter. No such provisions have been taken in respect of the Donaldson, antitrust or TransWeb legal proceedings referred to above.

Other Contingencies

In the event of a change in control of the Company, termination benefits are likely to be required for certain executive officers and other employees