CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS	12 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS	CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS With respect to the matters described below under the headings Federal Securities Class Actions and Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits, the Company has assessed the ultimate resolution of these matters and has reflected appropriate contingent liabilities and related insurance recoveries of an equal amount in the consolidated financial statements as of July 31, 2013. Federal Securities Class Actions: In 2007, four putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain members of its management team alleging violations of the federal securities laws relating to the Company’s understatement of certain of its U.S. income tax payments and of its provision for income taxes in certain prior periods as described in Note 2, Audit Committee Inquiry and Restatement to the consolidated financial statements included in the 2007 Form 10-K. These lawsuits were filed between August 14, 2007 and October 11, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. By Order dated May 28, 2008, the Court consolidated the cases under the caption “In re Pall Corp,” No. 07-CV-3359 (E.D.N.Y.) (JS) (ARL), and appointed a lead plaintiff who filed a consolidated amended complaint in August 2008. The lead plaintiff sought to act as representative for a class consisting of purchasers of the Company’s stock between April 20, 2007, and August 2, 2007, inclusive. The consolidated amended complaint named the Company, its former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer as defendants and alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and alleged that the defendants issued materially false and misleading public statements about the Company’s financial results and financial statements, including the Company’s income tax liability, effective tax rate, internal controls and accounting practices. The plaintiffs sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. In September 2009, the Court granted the lead plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. After motion practice, the parties conducted discovery during the fiscal year ended July 31, 2011. During fiscal year 2012, the Company reached an agreement with the lead plaintiff to settle the consolidated putative securities class-action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, the lawsuit would be dismissed with prejudice, and the Company and all individual defendants would not admit any liability and would receive a full and complete release of all claims asserted against them in the litigation, in exchange for the payment of an aggregate of $22,500. Of the monetary payment to be made on behalf of the Company and the individual defendants, substantially all would be funded from insurance proceeds. In June 2013, the Court entered an order dismissing the case and approving the settlement. The matters are now closed. Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits: In October 2007, two plaintiffs filed identical derivative lawsuits in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, relating to the Company’s understatement of certain of its U.S. income tax payments and of its provision for income taxes in certain prior periods as described in Note 2, Audit Committee Inquiry and Restatement to the consolidated financial statements included in the 2007 Form 10-K. These actions purported to bring claims on behalf of the Company based on allegations that certain current and former directors and officers of the Company breached their fiduciary duties by failing to evaluate and otherwise inform themselves about the Company’s internal controls and financial reporting systems and procedures. In addition, plaintiffs alleged that certain officers of the Company were unjustly enriched as a result of the Company’s inaccurate financial results over fiscal years 1999-2006 and the first three quarters of fiscal year 2007. The complaints sought unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the Company, disgorgement of defendants’ salaries, bonuses, stock grants and stock options, equitable relief and costs and expenses. The Company, acting in its capacity as nominal defendant, moved to dismiss the complaints for failure to make a demand upon the Company’s board of directors, which motions were granted on April 30 and May 2, 2008. On September 19, 2008, the same two plaintiffs filed a derivative lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, which was served on the Company on September 26, 2008 (the “Saxton Derivative”). This action purported to bring claims on behalf of the Company based on allegations that certain current and former directors and officers of the Company breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched in connection with the tax matter. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that the board’s refusal of their demand to commence an action against the defendants was not made in good faith. The plaintiffs and the Company agreed to stay this proceeding. In November 2008, a shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company and against the Company as nominal defendant (the “Hoadley Derivative”). The Hoadley Derivative action purported to bring similar claims as the Saxton Derivative. In January 2011, an additional shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company, and against the Company as nominal defendant (the “Nadoff Derivative”). The action purported to bring claims on behalf of the Company similar to those alleged in the Saxton and Hoadley Derivative actions. The complaint sought damages, together with various injunctive and declaratory relief. In light of the settlement of the federal class action suit described above, the Company and plaintiffs in the Saxton Derivative, the Hoadley Derivative and the Nadoff Derivative actions began settlement negotiations and entered into a Stipulation of Settlement in April 2013 (the “Stipulation of Settlement”). Under the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, the lawsuits would be dismissed with prejudice, and the Company and all individual defendants would not admit any liability and would receive a full and complete release of all claims asserted against them in the litigation. In exchange, the Company agreed to reaffirm and otherwise implement certain general corporate governance and internal control goals and principles and pay an aggregate of $1,250 in plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and expenses. Of the monetary payment to be made on behalf of the Company and the individual defendants, substantially all would be funded from insurance proceeds. In June 2013, the Court held a settlement hearing and approved the Stipulation of Settlement. The Court entered a Final Order approving the Stipulation of Settlement in July 2013. The Saxton Derivative, the Hoadley Derivative and the Nadoff Derivative actions are now closed. Environmental Matters: The Company has environmental matters, discussed below, at the following three U.S. sites: Ann Arbor, Michigan; Pinellas Park, Florida and Glen Cove, New York. The Company’s balance sheet at July 31, 2013 contains environmental liabilities of $18,326 which relate to the items discussed below. In the opinion of Company management, the Company is in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulatory orders and its accruals for environmental remediation are adequate at this time. Ann Arbor, Michigan: In February 1988, an action was filed in the Circuit Court for Washtenaw County, Michigan (the “Court”) by the State of Michigan (the “State”) against Gelman Sciences Inc. (“Gelman”), a subsidiary acquired by the Company in February 1997. The action sought to compel Gelman to investigate and remediate contamination near Gelman’s Ann Arbor facility and requested reimbursement of costs the State had expended in investigating the contamination, which the State alleged was caused by Gelman’s disposal of waste water from its manufacturing process. Pursuant to a consent judgment entered into by Gelman and the State in October 1992 (amended September 1996 and October 1999) (the “Consent Judgment”), which resolved that litigation, Gelman is remediating the contamination without admitting wrongdoing. In February 2000, the State Assistant Attorney General filed a Motion to Enforce Consent Judgment. In February 2000, the State Assistant Attorney General filed a Motion to Enforce Consent Judgment. Gelman disputed these assertions. Following an evidentiary hearing in July 2000, the Court issued a Remediation Enforcement Order requiring Gelman to submit and implement a detailed plan to reduce the contamination to acceptable levels within five years. Gelman’s plan was approved by both the Court and the State. Although groundwater concentrations remain above acceptable levels in much of the affected area, the Court has expressed its satisfaction with Gelman’s progress during hearings both before and after the five-year period expired. In February 2004, the Court instructed Gelman to submit its Final Feasibility Study describing how it intends to address an area of groundwater contamination not addressed by the previously approved plan (referred to as “Unit E Aquifer”). Gelman submitted its Feasibility Study as instructed. The State also submitted its plan for remediating this area of contamination to the Court. On December 17, 2004, the Court issued its Order and Opinion Regarding Remediation and Contamination of the Unit E Aquifer to address this area of groundwater contamination. The Court approved the agreed upon third amendment to the Consent Judgment on March 8, 2011. The amendment consolidated and streamlined the cleanup objectives and requirements, which had previously been included in the Consent Judgment and the Court’s subsequent remediation orders (discussed above). The State and the Company are in the process of implementing the cleanup program required by the amendment. Since the Company’s acquisition of Gelman, the State asserted several monetary claims allegedly arising from its enforcement of the Consent Judgment. In July 2012, the Company reached a tentative settlement of all monetary claims, including the stipulated penalties for a cost of $500. The settlement will also resolve similar future groundwater monitoring claims. In July 2011, a Demand Letter from a neighboring landowner was sent to Gelman seeking compensation for diminution in value of approximately 144/154 acres of land resulting from inability to develop the land allegedly due to groundwater contamination emanating from Gelman’s Wagner Road facility. The Company believes there are barriers to development that are independent of the contamination issue. No lawsuit has been filed and it is likely that the statute of limitations in this case has now been reached. In June 2013, the same neighboring landowner served a “Notice of Intent” regarding the potential filing of a statutory claim commonly referred to as a “Citizen’s Suit”. The relief available under the referenced statutes is limited to injunctive relief. The Company believes that the State’s enforcement action and the court-approved cleanup program bar the threatened private Citizen’s Suit. Based on the known situation, Company management has concluded that the current remediation reserve of $10,860 at July 31, 2013 is appropriate. Pinellas Park, Florida: In 1995, as part of a facility closure, an environmental site assessment was conducted to evaluate potential soil and groundwater impacts from chemicals that may have been used at the Company’s Pinellas Park facility during its manufacturing and testing operations. Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (“MIBK”) concentrations in groundwater were found to be higher than regulatory levels. Soil excavation was conducted in 1998 and subsequent groundwater sampling showed MIBK concentrations below the regulatory limits. In October 2000, environmental consultants for a prospective buyer of the property found groundwater contamination at the Company’s property. In October 2001, a Site Assessment Report conducted by the Company’s consultants, which detailed contamination concentrations and distributions, was submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“FDEP”). In July 2002, a Supplemental Contamination Assessment Plan and an Interim Remedial Action Plan (“IRAP”) were prepared by the Company’s consultants and submitted to the FDEP. A revised IRAP was submitted by the Company in December 2003, that was accepted by the FDEP in January 2004. A Remedial Action Plan (“RAP”) was submitted by the Company to the FDEP in June 2004. Final approval by the FDEP of the Company’s RAP was received by the Company on August 26, 2006. Pursuant to the approved RAP, the Company began active remediation on the property. Extensive on-site remediation was done to address source area concentrations and eliminate free-phase product, which is required by FDEP. On March 31, 2006, the FDEP requested that the Company investigate potential off-site migration of contaminants. Off-site contamination was identified and the FDEP was notified. On April 13, 2007, the FDEP reclassified the previously approved RAP as an Interim Source Removal Plan (“ISRP”) because a RAP can only be submitted after all contamination is defined. Pursuant to FDEP requirements, the Company installed additional on-site and off-site monitoring wells during fiscal years 2006 through 2009. Additional monitoring wells were installed in fiscal year 2010 and monitoring results provided to the FDEP. The Company completed and submitted a Site Assessment Report (“SAR”) Addendum, summarizing the soil and groundwater contamination, delineation and remediation; the FDEP approved the SAR Addendum in May 2012. The Company submitted a RAP in October 2012 in accordance with a schedule approved by the FDEP. The RAP describes a remedy identified as Risk Management Option III (“RMO III”). The FDEP has agreed with the approach outlined in RMO III. Additional remediation at the site will be designed to satisfy the RMO III site closure requirements, which include (1) no free product contaminants, (2) shrinking or stable plumes, and (3) prevention of future exposure of the public or environment. The RMO III also requires land use restrictions for those properties where contaminate concentrations exceed default values. The Company has secured restrictive covenants for the three properties immediately down gradient and continues negotiation of additional restrictive covenants on other properties including County and City right-of-ways. In the RAP, the Company proposes the use of groundwater extraction from several well locations. This effort will be designed to stabilize the plume, a requirement of the RMO III closure process. Once the RMO III closure criteria are met and active remediation has stopped, groundwater sampling and analysis must continue for at least the legislative minimum of one year. After groundwater sampling is complete, a closure application will be submitted to FDEP. Glen Cove, New York: A March 1994 report indicated groundwater contamination consisting of chlorinated solvents at a neighboring site to the Company’s Glen Cove facility, and later reports found groundwater contamination in both the shallow and intermediate zones at the facility. In 1999, the Company entered into an Order on Consent with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”), and completed a Phase II Remedial Investigation at the Glen Cove facility. The NYSDEC has designated two operable units (“OUs”) associated with the Glen Cove facility. In March 2004, the NYSDEC finalized the Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the shallow and intermediate groundwater zones, termed OU-1. The Company signed an Order on Consent for OU-1 effective July 5, 2004, which required the Company to prepare a Remedial Design/Remedial Action (“RD/RA”) Work Plan to address groundwater conditions at the Glen Cove facility. The Company completed a pilot test involving the injection of a chemical oxidant into on-site groundwater and, on May 31, 2006, submitted a report to NYSDEC entitled “In-Situ Chemical Oxidation Phase II Pilot Test and Source Evaluation Report” (the “Report”). The Report contained data which demonstrated that (1) in general, the pilot test successfully reduced contaminant levels and (2) the hydraulic controls installed on the upgradient Photocircuits Corporation (“Photocircuits”) site are not effective and contaminated groundwater continues to migrate from that site. On July 31, 2006, the Company received comments from NYSDEC on the Report. On September 27, 2006, the Company submitted responses to the NYSDEC comments. On November 16, 2006, the Company met with the NYSDEC representatives to discuss the Report and the impact of the continued migration of contaminated groundwater from the upgradient Photocircuits site onto the Glen Cove facility. On January 26, 2007, the Company submitted a draft conceptual remedial design document for the Glen Cove facility to NYSDEC for its technical review. The Company met with NYSDEC representatives on April 12, 2007 to discuss a possible settlement of liability for OU-1 and for the contamination in the deep groundwater zone, termed OU-2. NYSDEC would not agree to settle OU-2 because a remedial investigation had not been completed. After numerous settlement discussions, the Company and NYSDEC executed on September 23, 2009 a Consent Decree settling liability for OU-1. On October 23, 2009, the Consent Decree was entered by the clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and became effective. Pursuant to the Consent Decree, the Company paid $2,000 on November 19, 2009 (which was previously accrued) in exchange for a broad release of OU-1 claims and liability. Claims and losses arising out of or in connection with OU-2 or any damages to the State’s natural resources are excluded from the settlement. The ROD for OU-2 was deferred by NYSDEC until additional data was available to delineate contamination and select an appropriate remedy. NYSDEC requested that the Company and Photocircuits enter into a joint Order on Consent for the remedial investigation for OU-2. Photocircuits was not willing to enter into an Order and the Company was informed by NYSDEC that it would undertake the OU-2 investigation at the Photocircuits property. Photocircuits filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in October 2005 and, in or about March 2006, the assets of Photocircuits’ Glen Cove facility were sold to American Pacific Financial Corporation (“AMPAC”). AMPAC operated the facility under the Photocircuits name, but closed it on or about April 15, 2007. A Final Decree and Order closing Photocircuits’ Chapter 11 bankruptcy case was entered by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court on September 16, 2009 and no distributions were made to general unsecured creditors, which included the Company. In July 2007, NYSDEC commenced the OU-2 investigation at both the Photocircuits and Pall sites. The Company retained an engineering consultant to oversee NYSDEC’s OU-2 work. NYSDEC’s OU-2 investigation is completed. In March 2013, NYSDEC issued RODs setting forth the remedies it selected for OU-2 at both the Pall and the Photocircuits sites. NYSDEC proposes to construct a single remedial system at the Pall site to address impacts to OU-2 at both sites. The remedy consists of in-situ chemical oxidation, groundwater pumping and reinjection, monitoring, and operation and maintenance activities. NYSDEC has incurred costs for the OU-2 investigation at the Pall site. If the OU-2 investigation costs are not paid by the Company after receipt of a demand from NYSDEC, it is expected that NYSDEC will bring a cost recovery action against the Company for the investigation costs. If the Company does not implement the OU-2 remedy selected in the ROD, NYSDEC will implement the remedy. In that case, NYSDEC will bring a cost recovery action against the Company for the cost of the construction of the remedy. The cost to implement the remedy will not be known until certain pilot testing to assess the feasibility of the remedial process for OU-2 is completed. The Company has met with NYSDEC representatives regarding possible settlement of any present and future claims that NYSDEC may have related to OU-2 and settlement discussions are ongoing. Effective August 14, 2010, the Company and the State entered into a Tolling Agreement pursuant to which the time between October 9, 2009, the date of the Consent Decree for OU-1 was filed, and January 31, 2012, or such date as the State files suit, will not be included when computing the statute of limitations applicable to the commencement of any action by the State in connection with claims and losses arising out of OU-2 or natural resource damages associated with OU-1 or OU-2. On January 30, 2012 and January 23, 2013, the Company and the State entered into other Tolling Agreements extending the statute of limitations exclusion period concerning OU-2 through January 31, 2014. In the opinion of Company management, the Company is in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and its accruals for environmental remediation are adequate at this time. Because regulatory standards under environmental laws are becoming increasingly stringent, there can be no assurance that future developments, additional information and experience gained will not cause the Company to incur material environmental liabilities or costs beyond those accrued in its consolidated financial statements. Other Contingencies and Commitments: The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to certain other legal actions that arise in the normal course of business. Other than those legal proceedings and claims discussed above, the Company did not have any current other legal proceedings and claims that would individually or in the aggregate have a reasonably possible materially adverse effect on its financial condition or operating results. As such, any reasonably possible loss or range of loss, other than those related to the legal proceedings discussed in this Note, is immaterial. However, the results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty. If the Company failed to prevail in several of these legal matters in the same reporting period, the operating results of a particular reporting period could be materially adversely affected. The Company warrants its products against defect in design, materials and workmanship over various time periods. Warranty costs are recorded based upon experience. The warranty accrual as of July 31, 2013 and July 31, 2012 is immaterial to the financial position of the Company as is the change in the accrual for fiscal year 2013 to the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows and financial position. As of July 31, 2013, the Company had surety bonds outstanding relating primarily to its long-term contracts with governmental agencies of approximately $181,840. The Company and its subsidiaries lease office and warehouse space, automobiles, computers and office equipment. Rent expense from continuing operations for all operating leases amounted to approximately $34,694 in fiscal year 2013, $35,319 in fiscal year 2012 and $31,943 in fiscal year 2011. Future minimum rental commitments at July 31, 2013, for all non-cancelable operating leases with initial terms exceeding one year are $26,460 in 2014; $17,827 in 2015; $11,796 in 2016; $7,714 in 2017; $4,558 in 2018 and $11,433 thereafter. The Company and its subsidiaries have various non-cancelable purchase commitments for goods or services with various vendors that have terms in excess of one year. Future purchase commitments at July 31, 2013, for the aforementioned purchase commitments are $47,934 in 2014; $5,131 in 2015; $3,898 in 2016, $2,592 in 2017, $2,636 in 2018 and $6,381 thereafter.

CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS

With respect to the matters described below under the headings Federal Securities Class Actions and Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits, the Company has assessed the ultimate resolution of these matters and has reflected appropriate contingent liabilities and related insurance recoveries of an equal amount in the consolidated financial statements as of July 31, 2013.

Federal Securities Class Actions:

In 2007, four putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain members of its management team alleging violations of the federal securities laws relating to the Company’s understatement of certain of its U.S. income tax payments and of its provision for income taxes in certain prior periods as described in Note 2, Audit Committee Inquiry and Restatement to the consolidated financial statements included in the 2007 Form 10-K. These lawsuits were filed between August 14, 2007 and October 11, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. By Order dated May 28, 2008, the Court consolidated the cases under the caption “In re Pall Corp,” No. 07-CV-3359 (E.D.N.Y.) (JS) (ARL), and appointed a lead plaintiff who filed a consolidated amended complaint in August 2008. The lead plaintiff sought to act as representative for a class consisting of purchasers of the Company’s stock between April 20, 2007, and August 2, 2007, inclusive. The consolidated amended complaint named the Company, its former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer as defendants and alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and alleged that the defendants issued materially false and misleading public statements about the Company’s financial results and financial statements, including the Company’s income tax liability, effective tax rate, internal controls and accounting practices. The plaintiffs sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. In September 2009, the Court granted the lead plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. After motion practice, the parties conducted discovery during the fiscal year ended July 31, 2011.

During fiscal year 2012, the Company reached an agreement with the lead plaintiff to settle the consolidated putative securities class-action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, the lawsuit would be dismissed with prejudice, and the Company and all individual defendants would not admit any liability and would receive a full and complete release of all claims asserted against them in the litigation, in exchange for the payment of an aggregate of $22,500. Of the monetary payment to be made on behalf of the Company and the individual defendants, substantially all would be funded from insurance proceeds. In June 2013, the Court entered an order dismissing the case and approving the settlement. The matters are now closed.

Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits:

In October 2007, two plaintiffs filed identical derivative lawsuits in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, relating to the Company’s understatement of certain of its U.S. income tax payments and of its provision for income taxes in certain prior periods as described in Note 2, Audit Committee Inquiry and Restatement to the consolidated financial statements included in the 2007 Form 10-K. These actions purported to bring claims on behalf of the Company based on allegations that certain current and former directors and officers of the Company breached their fiduciary duties by failing to evaluate and otherwise inform themselves about the Company’s internal controls and financial reporting systems and procedures. In addition, plaintiffs alleged that certain officers of the Company were unjustly enriched as a result of the Company’s inaccurate financial results over fiscal years 1999-2006 and the first three quarters of fiscal year 2007. The complaints sought unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the Company, disgorgement of defendants’ salaries, bonuses, stock grants and stock options, equitable relief and costs and expenses. The Company, acting in its capacity as nominal defendant, moved to dismiss the complaints for failure to make a demand upon the Company’s board of directors, which motions were granted on April 30 and May 2, 2008. On September 19, 2008, the same two plaintiffs filed a derivative lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, which was served on the Company on September 26, 2008 (the “Saxton Derivative”). This action purported to bring claims on behalf of the Company based on allegations that certain current and former directors and officers of the Company breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched in connection with the tax matter. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that the board’s refusal of their demand to commence an action against the defendants was not made in good faith. The plaintiffs and the Company agreed to stay this proceeding.

In November 2008, a shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company and against the Company as nominal defendant (the “Hoadley Derivative”). The Hoadley Derivative action purported to bring similar claims as the Saxton Derivative. In January 2011, an additional shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company, and against the Company as nominal defendant (the “Nadoff Derivative”). The action purported to bring claims on behalf of the Company similar to those alleged in the Saxton and Hoadley Derivative actions. The complaint sought damages, together with various injunctive and declaratory relief.

In light of the settlement of the federal class action suit described above, the Company and plaintiffs in the Saxton Derivative, the Hoadley Derivative and the Nadoff Derivative actions began settlement negotiations and entered into a Stipulation of Settlement in April 2013 (the “Stipulation of Settlement”). Under the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, the lawsuits would be dismissed with prejudice, and the Company and all individual defendants would not admit any liability and would receive a full and complete release of all claims asserted against them in the litigation. In exchange, the Company agreed to reaffirm and otherwise implement certain general corporate governance and internal control goals and principles and pay an aggregate of $1,250 in plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and expenses. Of the monetary payment to be made on behalf of the Company and the individual defendants, substantially all would be funded from insurance proceeds. In June 2013, the Court held a settlement hearing and approved the Stipulation of Settlement. The Court entered a Final Order approving the Stipulation of Settlement in July 2013. The Saxton Derivative, the Hoadley Derivative and the Nadoff Derivative actions are now closed.

Environmental Matters:

The Company has environmental matters, discussed below, at the following three U.S. sites: Ann Arbor, Michigan; Pinellas Park, Florida and Glen Cove, New York.

The Company’s balance sheet at July 31, 2013 contains environmental liabilities of $18,326 which relate to the items discussed below. In the opinion of Company management, the Company is in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulatory orders and its accruals for environmental remediation are adequate at this time.

Ann Arbor, Michigan:

In February 1988, an action was filed in the Circuit Court for Washtenaw County, Michigan (the “Court”) by the State of Michigan (the “State”) against Gelman Sciences Inc. (“Gelman”), a subsidiary acquired by the Company in February 1997. The action sought to compel Gelman to investigate and remediate contamination near Gelman’s Ann Arbor facility and requested reimbursement of costs the State had expended in investigating the contamination, which the State alleged was caused by Gelman’s disposal of waste water from its manufacturing process. Pursuant to a consent judgment entered into by Gelman and the State in October 1992 (amended September 1996 and October 1999) (the “Consent Judgment”), which resolved that litigation, Gelman is remediating the contamination without admitting wrongdoing.

In February 2000, the State Assistant Attorney General filed a Motion to Enforce Consent Judgment. In February 2000, the State Assistant Attorney General filed a Motion to Enforce Consent Judgment. Gelman disputed these assertions. Following an evidentiary hearing in July 2000, the Court issued a Remediation Enforcement Order requiring Gelman to submit and implement a detailed plan to reduce the contamination to acceptable levels within five years. Gelman’s plan was approved by both the Court and the State. Although groundwater concentrations remain above acceptable levels in much of the affected area, the Court has expressed its satisfaction with Gelman’s progress during hearings both before and after the five-year period expired.

In February 2004, the Court instructed Gelman to submit its Final Feasibility Study describing how it intends to address an area of groundwater contamination not addressed by the previously approved plan (referred to as “Unit E Aquifer”). Gelman submitted its Feasibility Study as instructed. The State also submitted its plan for remediating this area of contamination to the Court. On December 17, 2004, the Court issued its Order and Opinion Regarding Remediation and Contamination of the Unit E Aquifer to address this area of groundwater contamination.

The Court approved the agreed upon third amendment to the Consent Judgment on March 8, 2011. The amendment consolidated and streamlined the cleanup objectives and requirements, which had previously been included in the Consent Judgment and the Court’s subsequent remediation orders (discussed above). The State and the Company are in the process of implementing the cleanup program required by the amendment.

Since the Company’s acquisition of Gelman, the State asserted several monetary claims allegedly arising from its enforcement of the Consent Judgment. In July 2012, the Company reached a tentative settlement of all monetary claims, including the stipulated penalties for a cost of $500. The settlement will also resolve similar future groundwater monitoring claims.

In July 2011, a Demand Letter from a neighboring landowner was sent to Gelman seeking compensation for diminution in value of approximately 144/154 acres of land resulting from inability to develop the land allegedly due to groundwater contamination emanating from Gelman’s Wagner Road facility. The Company believes there are barriers to development that are independent of the contamination issue. No lawsuit has been filed and it is likely that the statute of limitations in this case has now been reached.

In June 2013, the same neighboring landowner served a “Notice of Intent” regarding the potential filing of a statutory claim commonly referred to as a “Citizen’s Suit”. The relief available under the referenced statutes is limited to injunctive relief. The Company believes that the State’s enforcement action and the court-approved cleanup program bar the threatened private Citizen’s Suit.

Based on the known situation, Company management has concluded that the current remediation reserve of $10,860 at July 31, 2013 is appropriate.

Pinellas Park, Florida:

In 1995, as part of a facility closure, an environmental site assessment was conducted to evaluate potential soil and groundwater impacts from chemicals that may have been used at the Company’s Pinellas Park facility during its manufacturing and testing operations. Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (“MIBK”) concentrations in groundwater were found to be higher than regulatory levels. Soil excavation was conducted in 1998 and subsequent groundwater sampling showed MIBK concentrations below the regulatory limits.

In October 2000, environmental consultants for a prospective buyer of the property found groundwater contamination at the Company’s property. In October 2001, a Site Assessment Report conducted by the Company’s consultants, which detailed contamination concentrations and distributions, was submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“FDEP”).

In July 2002, a Supplemental Contamination Assessment Plan and an Interim Remedial Action Plan (“IRAP”) were prepared by the Company’s consultants and submitted to the FDEP. A revised IRAP was submitted by the Company in December 2003, that was accepted by the FDEP in January 2004. A Remedial Action Plan (“RAP”) was submitted by the Company to the FDEP in June 2004. Final approval by the FDEP of the Company’s RAP was received by the Company on August 26, 2006. Pursuant to the approved RAP, the Company began active remediation on the property. Extensive on-site remediation was done to address source area concentrations and eliminate free-phase product, which is required by FDEP.

On March 31, 2006, the FDEP requested that the Company investigate potential off-site migration of contaminants. Off-site contamination was identified and the FDEP was notified. On April 13, 2007, the FDEP reclassified the previously approved RAP as an Interim Source Removal Plan (“ISRP”) because a RAP can only be submitted after all contamination is defined.

Pursuant to FDEP requirements, the Company installed additional on-site and off-site monitoring wells during fiscal years 2006 through 2009. Additional monitoring wells were installed in fiscal year 2010 and monitoring results provided to the FDEP. The Company completed and submitted a Site Assessment Report (“SAR”) Addendum, summarizing the soil and groundwater contamination, delineation and remediation; the FDEP approved the SAR Addendum in May 2012.

The Company submitted a RAP in October 2012 in accordance with a schedule approved by the FDEP. The RAP describes a remedy identified as Risk Management Option III (“RMO III”). The FDEP has agreed with the approach outlined in RMO III. Additional remediation at the site will be designed to satisfy the RMO III site closure requirements, which include (1) no free product contaminants, (2) shrinking or stable plumes, and (3) prevention of future exposure of the public or environment. The RMO III also requires land use restrictions for those properties where contaminate concentrations exceed default values. The Company has secured restrictive covenants for the three properties immediately down gradient and continues negotiation of additional restrictive covenants on other properties including County and City right-of-ways.

In the RAP, the Company proposes the use of groundwater extraction from several well locations. This effort will be designed to stabilize the plume, a requirement of the RMO III closure process. Once the RMO III closure criteria are met and active remediation has stopped, groundwater sampling and analysis must continue for at least the legislative minimum of one year. After groundwater sampling is complete, a closure application will be submitted to FDEP.

Glen Cove, New York:

A March 1994 report indicated groundwater contamination consisting of chlorinated solvents at a neighboring site to the Company’s Glen Cove facility, and later reports found groundwater contamination in both the shallow and intermediate zones at the facility. In 1999, the Company entered into an Order on Consent with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”), and completed a Phase II Remedial Investigation at the Glen Cove facility.

The NYSDEC has designated two operable units (“OUs”) associated with the Glen Cove facility. In March 2004, the NYSDEC finalized the Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the shallow and intermediate groundwater zones, termed OU-1. The Company signed an Order on Consent for OU-1 effective July 5, 2004, which required the Company to prepare a Remedial Design/Remedial Action (“RD/RA”) Work Plan to address groundwater conditions at the Glen Cove facility.

The Company completed a pilot test involving the injection of a chemical oxidant into on-site groundwater and, on May 31, 2006, submitted a report to NYSDEC entitled “In-Situ Chemical Oxidation Phase II Pilot Test and Source Evaluation Report” (the “Report”). The Report contained data which demonstrated that (1) in general, the pilot test successfully reduced contaminant levels and (2) the hydraulic controls installed on the upgradient Photocircuits Corporation (“Photocircuits”) site are not effective and contaminated groundwater continues to migrate from that site. On July 31, 2006, the Company received comments from NYSDEC on the Report. On September 27, 2006, the Company submitted responses to the NYSDEC comments. On November 16, 2006, the Company met with the NYSDEC representatives to discuss the Report and the impact of the continued migration of contaminated groundwater from the upgradient Photocircuits site onto the Glen Cove facility. On January 26, 2007, the Company submitted a draft conceptual remedial design document for the Glen Cove facility to NYSDEC for its technical review.

The Company met with NYSDEC representatives on April 12, 2007 to discuss a possible settlement of liability for OU-1 and for the contamination in the deep groundwater zone, termed OU-2. NYSDEC would not agree to settle OU-2 because a remedial investigation had not been completed. After numerous settlement discussions, the Company and NYSDEC executed on September 23, 2009 a Consent Decree settling liability for OU-1. On October 23, 2009, the Consent Decree was entered by the clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and became effective. Pursuant to the Consent Decree, the Company paid $2,000 on November 19, 2009 (which was previously accrued) in exchange for a broad release of OU-1 claims and liability. Claims and losses arising out of or in connection with OU-2 or any damages to the State’s natural resources are excluded from the settlement. The ROD for OU-2 was deferred by NYSDEC until additional data was available to delineate contamination and select an appropriate remedy. NYSDEC requested that the Company and Photocircuits enter into a joint Order on Consent for the remedial investigation for OU-2. Photocircuits was not willing to enter into an Order and the Company was informed by NYSDEC that it would undertake the OU-2 investigation at the Photocircuits property. Photocircuits filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in October 2005 and, in or about March 2006, the assets of Photocircuits’ Glen Cove facility were sold to American Pacific Financial Corporation (“AMPAC”). AMPAC operated the facility under the Photocircuits name, but closed it on or about April 15, 2007. A Final Decree and Order closing Photocircuits’ Chapter 11 bankruptcy case was entered by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court on September 16, 2009 and no distributions were made to general unsecured creditors, which included the Company.

In July 2007, NYSDEC commenced the OU-2 investigation at both the Photocircuits and Pall sites. The Company retained an engineering consultant to oversee NYSDEC’s OU-2 work. NYSDEC’s OU-2 investigation is completed. In March 2013, NYSDEC issued RODs setting forth the remedies it selected for OU-2 at both the Pall and the Photocircuits sites. NYSDEC proposes to construct a single remedial system at the Pall site to address impacts to OU-2 at both sites. The remedy consists of in-situ chemical oxidation, groundwater pumping and reinjection, monitoring, and operation and maintenance activities.

NYSDEC has incurred costs for the OU-2 investigation at the Pall site. If the OU-2 investigation costs are not paid by the Company after receipt of a demand from NYSDEC, it is expected that NYSDEC will bring a cost recovery action against the Company for the investigation costs. If the Company does not implement the OU-2 remedy selected in the ROD, NYSDEC will implement the remedy. In that case, NYSDEC will bring a cost recovery action against the Company for the cost of the construction of the remedy. The cost to implement the remedy will not be known until certain pilot testing to assess the feasibility of the remedial process for OU-2 is completed. The Company has met with NYSDEC representatives regarding possible settlement of any present and future claims that NYSDEC may have related to OU-2 and settlement discussions are ongoing.

Effective August 14, 2010, the Company and the State entered into a Tolling Agreement pursuant to which the time between October 9, 2009, the date of the Consent Decree for OU-1 was filed, and January 31, 2012, or such date as the State files suit, will not be included when computing the statute of limitations applicable to the commencement of any action by the State in connection with claims and losses arising out of OU-2 or natural resource damages associated with OU-1 or OU-2. On January 30, 2012 and January 23, 2013, the Company and the State entered into other Tolling Agreements extending the statute of limitations exclusion period concerning OU-2 through January 31, 2014.

In the opinion of Company management, the Company is in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and its accruals for environmental remediation are adequate at this time. Because regulatory standards under environmental laws are becoming increasingly stringent, there can be no assurance that future developments, additional information and experience gained will not cause the Company to incur material environmental liabilities or costs beyond those accrued in its consolidated financial statements.

Other Contingencies and Commitments:

The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to certain other legal actions that arise in the normal course of business. Other than those legal proceedings and claims discussed above, the Company did not have any current other legal proceedings and claims that would individually or in the aggregate have a reasonably possible materially adverse effect on its financial condition or operating results. As such, any reasonably possible loss or range of loss, other than those related to the legal proceedings discussed in this Note, is immaterial. However, the results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty. If the Company failed to prevail in several of these legal matters in the same reporting period, the operating results of a particular reporting period could be materially adversely affected.

The Company warrants its products against defect in design, materials and workmanship over various time periods. Warranty costs are recorded based upon experience. The warranty accrual as of July 31, 2013 and July 31, 2012 is immaterial to the financial position of the Company as is the change in the accrual for fiscal year 2013 to the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

As of July 31, 2013, the Company had surety bonds outstanding relating primarily to its long-term contracts with governmental agencies of approximately $181,840.

The Company and its subsidiaries lease office and warehouse space, automobiles, computers and office equipment. Rent expense from continuing operations for all operating leases amounted to approximately $34,694 in fiscal year 2013, $35,319 in fiscal year 2012 and $31,943 in fiscal year 2011. Future minimum rental commitments at July 31, 2013, for all non-cancelable operating leases with initial terms exceeding one year are $26,460 in 2014; $17,827 in 2015; $11,796 in 2016; $7,714 in 2017; $4,558 in 2018 and $11,433 thereafter.

The Company and its subsidiaries have various non-cancelable purchase commitments for goods or services with various vendors that have terms in excess of one year. Future purchase commitments at July 31, 2013, for the aforementioned purchase commitments are $47,934 in 2014; $5,131 in 2015; $3,898 in 2016, $2,592 in 2017, $2,636 in 2018 and $6,381 thereafter.