Contingencies	6 Months Ended
May 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [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 estimable outcomes of the items discussed below. 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. TransWeb/3M On May 21, 2010, 3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties (“3M”) brought a lawsuit against TransWeb, LLC ("TransWeb") in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that certain TransWeb products infringe multiple claims of 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 litigated 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. 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 certain upstream and downstream markets for fluorinated polymeric filtration media under theories of Walker Process fraud and sham litigation. TransWeb later dropped its patent infringement allegations against 3M, but continued to allege and pursue its inequitable conduct and antitrust claims. Prior to trial, 3M voluntarily dismissed with prejudice the majority of the patent claims 3M had originally brought against TransWeb, but continued to allege infringement by TransWeb of two claims of one of the patents in suit. On November 30, 2012, a six-member jury unanimously found that (i) TransWeb does not infringe the asserted claims of the 3M patent in suit, (ii) the asserted claims of the patent in suit are invalid as being obvious, (iii) 3M violated the antitrust laws in trying to enforce patents obtained through fraud on the United States Patent Office ("USPTO") (i.e., Walker Process fraud), (iv) TransWeb is entitled to recoup lost profits of approximately $34 plus its attorneys' fees as damages, and (v) 3M did not engage in "sham" litigation. The jury also rendered a unanimous advisory verdict, which was not binding on the court, that 3M's asserted patents were obtained through inequitable conduct, and thus unenforceable. Following the trial, the court ordered a third party Special Master to conduct a review to quantify and qualify TransWeb's attorneys' fees that may be awarded as damages, including those subject to potential trebling under the antitrust laws, and to make a recommendation to the court in this regard. On September 24, 2013, the Special Master recommended to the court that TransWeb be entitled to approximately $26,147. 3M subsequently moved the court to reject the Special Master's recommendation, and TransWeb moved the court to accept it. On April 21, 2014 the court issued a ruling in favor of TransWeb on all counts. Specifically, the court (i) upheld all of the jury's verdicts in TransWeb's favor vis-a-vis patent infringement, patent invalidity and antitrust violations by 3M; (ii) ruled that 3M's asserted patents were obtained through inequitable conduct before the USPTO, and thus unenforceable; and (iii) accepted the Special Master's recommendation that TransWeb is entitled to approximately $26,147 in damages. 3M then moved the court for a new trial, alleging that the jury's verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence presented at trial. The court denied 3M's motion on June 11, 2014. Under applicable law 3M has the automatic right to appeal the court's judgment to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 3M must file its notice of appeal within 30 days of June 11, 2014, and the Company anticipates that 3M will do so. The Company acquired TransWeb on December 29, 2010. The $30,017 base purchase price included a $17,000 liability due to the former owners of TransWeb, which payment could be reduced dollar-for-dollar for qualifying costs incurred by the Company in connection with the 3M litigation. Since the acquisition date, the Company has expensed legal costs in connection with the 3M litigation and simultaneously recorded the recovery of such costs from the former owners through a reduction of the liability due to the former owners and a corresponding reduction in legal expense. Qualifying costs incurred by the Company have exceeded $17,000 and, as such, the Company believes that no further payments are due to the former owners of TransWeb. The Company does not anticipate incurring any liability in connection with the litigation, due to the fact that the district court ruled in TransWeb's favor on all counts. The Company does anticipate incurring additional litigation related expenses in connection with the anticipated appeal by 3M referenced above. The Company does not accrue for such expenses, but recognizes them as they are incurred. 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 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“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 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 estimable outcomes of the items discussed below. 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.

TransWeb/3M

On May 21, 2010, 3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties (“3M”) brought a lawsuit against TransWeb, LLC ("TransWeb") in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that certain TransWeb products infringe multiple claims of 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 litigated 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. 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 certain upstream and downstream markets for fluorinated polymeric filtration media under theories of Walker Process fraud and sham litigation. TransWeb later dropped its patent infringement allegations against 3M, but continued to allege and pursue its inequitable conduct and antitrust claims. Prior to trial, 3M voluntarily dismissed with prejudice the majority of the patent claims 3M had originally brought against TransWeb, but continued to allege infringement by TransWeb of two claims of one of the patents in suit.

On November 30, 2012, a six-member jury unanimously found that (i) TransWeb does not infringe the asserted claims of the 3M patent in suit, (ii) the asserted claims of the patent in suit are invalid as being obvious, (iii) 3M violated the antitrust laws in trying to enforce patents obtained through fraud on the United States Patent Office ("USPTO") (i.e., Walker Process fraud), (iv) TransWeb is entitled to recoup lost profits of approximately $34 plus its attorneys' fees as damages, and (v) 3M did not engage in "sham" litigation. The jury also rendered a unanimous advisory verdict, which was not binding on the court, that 3M's asserted patents were obtained through inequitable conduct, and thus unenforceable.

Following the trial, the court ordered a third party Special Master to conduct a review to quantify and qualify TransWeb's attorneys' fees that may be awarded as damages, including those subject to potential trebling under the antitrust laws, and to make a recommendation to the court in this regard. On September 24, 2013, the Special Master recommended to the court that TransWeb be entitled to approximately $26,147. 3M subsequently moved the court to reject the Special Master's recommendation, and TransWeb moved the court to accept it.

On April 21, 2014 the court issued a ruling in favor of TransWeb on all counts. Specifically, the court (i) upheld all of the jury's verdicts in TransWeb's favor vis-a-vis patent infringement, patent invalidity and antitrust violations by 3M; (ii) ruled that 3M's asserted patents were obtained through inequitable conduct before the USPTO, and thus unenforceable; and (iii) accepted the Special Master's recommendation that TransWeb is entitled to approximately $26,147 in damages. 3M then moved the court for a new trial, alleging that the jury's verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence presented at trial. The court denied 3M's motion on June 11, 2014.

Under applicable law 3M has the automatic right to appeal the court's judgment to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 3M must file its notice of appeal within 30 days of June 11, 2014, and the Company anticipates that 3M will do so.

The Company acquired TransWeb on December 29, 2010. The $30,017 base purchase price included a $17,000 liability due to the former owners of TransWeb, which payment could be reduced dollar-for-dollar for qualifying costs incurred by the Company in connection with the 3M litigation. Since the acquisition date, the Company has expensed legal costs in connection with the 3M litigation and simultaneously recorded the recovery of such costs from the former owners through a reduction of the liability due to the former owners and a corresponding reduction in legal expense. Qualifying costs incurred by the Company have exceeded $17,000 and, as such, the Company believes that no further payments are due to the former owners of TransWeb. The Company does not anticipate incurring any liability in connection with the litigation, due to the fact that the district court ruled in TransWeb's favor on all counts. The Company does anticipate incurring additional litigation related expenses in connection with the anticipated appeal by 3M referenced above. The Company does not accrue for such expenses, but recognizes them as they are incurred.

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 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“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 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.